B.A.R. ATTORNEYS – NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN COURTROOMS

04/30/2016

B.A.R. ATTORNEYS – NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN COURTROOMS

4-30-2016 8-01-10 AM

B.A.R. ATTORNEYS ARE SELF APPOINTED AND HAVE NO LICENSES

By David-William, thelibertybeacon.com
April 15, 2016

Connecticut Attorney, Simeon E. Baldwin, invited a group of 100 Attorneys from 21 states and the District of Columbia to meet on the 21st day of August of 1878, at Saratoga Springs, New York, to organize the American B.A.R. Association. Most of the men were elite corporate lawyers.  Author Jethro K. Lieberman described early ABA membership: “You could become an invitee to membership if you were white, Protestant and native born, preferably with a British surname, and attended the elite law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Columbia; only then did you have a chance of prospering. Catholics, Jews, women and blacks were automatically excluded from membership. This exclusion was necessary to the elite bar’s sense of identity. Any fraternity is defined not only by whom it accepts but also by whom it excludes. The Association also pinned the stigma of immorality on the lower class of lawyers as shysters who talked, dressed and acted differently.”

In 1902 the ABA quit meeting regularly at Saratoga Springs; from that point to 1936 it met in different cities as a means to attract new members.  Thus ABA membership grew to 29,008 in 1936. Other statistics demonstrated the same story.  The bar went from just two sections, each with two officers, to 14 sections with 960 officers in 1935. The number of committees rose from 18 in 1902 to 27 in 1935.  Membership revenues in those years increased from $8,255 to $197,877.66.

The ABA’s fight against the New Deal led more liberal attorneys to start their own society called the National Lawyers Guild.  A mixture of populists, Marxists, and progressive attorneys, mostly on the East Coast, formed the guild in 1937. This move was also motivated by the fact that the ABA represented a largely elite base of lawyers associated with big business while ignoring the legal needs of the lower classes and minorities.

In 1950, the 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus, any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.

Black’s Law Dictionaries 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st: “Lawyers:  A person learned in the law as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor, a person licensed to practice law, any person for who for fee or reward, prosecutes or defends, causes in courts of record, or other judicial tribunal, of the United States, or of any other State, or whose business it is to give legal advice, in relation to any case or matter, whatsoever.”  (Act of July 13, 1866 – Section 9, 14 Statutes at Large 121)

The B.A.R. Association has no Legislative Authority to have been created.  They’re a private corporation.  The Attorners are self appointed!  They gave themselves their authority, and they’re using fraudulent Statutes.  They just came in, took over, and they’re taking full advantage of the fact that no one will dig and read their real history.

THERE IS NO SUCH STATUTE IN THE STATUTES AT LARGE!!!  THE B.A.R. IS A PRIVATE INDUSTRY, A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION.  They’re trying to make everyone believe they have Congressional Authority, that they simply do not have.

Where in the Statutes at Large were Lawyers, most especially Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners, ever given the authority to practice law in the courtroom?  There isn’t even Legislative Authority for the International B.A.R., or the American B.A.R., the British Accreditation Registry, to be created, much less, authority to work in the courts, and to monopolize the courts.  They’re a private corporation, and they issue their own union cards, which they deceptively call “Licenses.”  Imagine a private Carpenter’s Union issuing their own licenses.  This type of monopoly is against the Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton Trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Smith Act.  They’re a SELF-APPOINTED monopoly.  These are foreign Agents registered under F.A.R.A.

As the years passed, these foreign Agents managed to get themselves unlawfully into Offices of Trust so they could shape statutes and codes to suit their agenda, rendering all their unconstitutionally created garbage, null and void, nunc pro tunc.

Article XIII put the teeth into this:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:  “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Article XIII  “If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

Do you have an understanding of what is meant when the original Article XIII says, “such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” Does it mean federal citizen of the United States only when it says, “under them, or either of them.” Doesn’t that mean federal (corporation) United States and also unincorporated United States?  So as anyone can read, especially the fraudsters who claim to have gone to law school, THEY’RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY OF THE THINGS THEY DO!  In 1871, the B.A.R. Attorners/Brokers for the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Banksters created a Military Coup on D.C., setting up the Bankster’s seizure of all commerce.  They’re foreclosed from partity with the living, so they created U.S. citizenship, so all U.S. citizens would be in contract with the Crown, as DEBTORS for the artificial BANKRUPTCY.

A lawyer is some one who studies law. An attorney is someone who holds the profession of attornment, the taking of property, people and goods for it’s owner/master.

Under the Attorney General Manual, while under Martial Law Rule, section 3.2 – 110, History, all one needs is to be learned in the law, not Color of Law.

Every single court case has been based upon fraud.  No B.A.R. Attorner has any legislative authority to prosecute anyone in any court room.  The B.A.R. Attorners do not know law.  They cannot sit at the Bench.  They live in Color of Law!  the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Editions clearly are written to mislead the readers, alleging and suggesting they were created by Congressional Authority, but they weren’t.  Black’s Law 5th has no such history either – Attorney House Counsel, Right to an Attorney, Counsel, Section 9, 14 Statutes at Large 121 was REMOVED!!!  They’re a FRAUD!  No one masquerading as a “Judge,” or “government official” can produce proof of their delegation of authority.  There is no law allowing them to walk into the courtroom, much less to sit at a bench.  They have NO JURISDICTION!  They’re robbing America!  It’s a closed union shop, and an overthrow of our constitutional form of government.  All court cases are Piracy!

The Crown Temple British Accreditation Registry is nothing but a continuing criminal enterprise.  They’re Administrating and monetizing everyone’s Estate Trust for the Bankruptcy created by the Crown Banksters.  They’re weaseling everyone’s consent into being collateral for the DEBT, without full and complete disclosure, under the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913, after they set THEMSELVES up, for themselves, by themselves, with no lawful authority.  They’re imposters!  Black’s Law said they have authority, when they DON’T.  Under the Private Attorney General Act, the people can do what they do.  They have nothing!  They can’t claim the P.A.G. Act, but we can!

Color of Law, is NOT law.  It’s fiction for corporate fictions.  It’s time to prosecute them, under real law, for prosecuting living people under Color of Law.  Again, they’re TERRORISTS, for the foreign Crown Banks.  They are not qualified to hold Offices of Trust.  The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the lower Courts and the Office of Attorney General, but these offices are not to be filled by the B.A.R. Attorners.  The Administrative Procedure Act, Senate Bill 7, says we, people can walk into a Court to represent people, not B.A.R. Attorners.  The law says who can walk into the Courts, and that’s us.

B.A.R. Rule 11: An Attorney cannot represent you!  Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 2, volume 4.  They have no duty to us.  They’re  also in violation of the Patriot Act, Section 800,  Title 18 USC 2331 – TERRORISM.  This violates Title 18 USC 241 and 242 – CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.  Also Title 18 USC 1621 – PERJURY.  Also Title 18 USC 1346 – HONEST SERVICE.  Also Title 18 USC 1918 – LOYALTY.  Felony after felony after felony!  In Black’s Law, the Attorneys who wrote the books quoted Section 9, 14 Statutes at Large 121 for “Lawyers” and it’s not even in there!  No matter where an Attorney is involved, in any type of case, it’s FRAUD.  Anything a Lawyer does in a Court room is a FRAUD.  They have no authority to sit at a Bench.  As soon as they tell you that you cannot bring law into the Court room, they just proved they have no Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  They’re nothing but foreign Agents under CITY OF LONDON.

Title 31 USC 3729 – FALSE CLAIMS, EMBEZZLEMENT, FRAUD.

To demonstrate how rotten they really are, look at the material below:

Murdock vs. Pennsylvania explains that no State can make you get a license or pay a fee to exercise your rights.  Forcing someone to join the B.A.R.  and to get a license violates Murdock v.s Pennsylvania, and one’s rights under Article X.  The B.A.R. is under the Crown, not the united States of America.  In the July 1868 Congressional Record, the B.A.R. was never Ratified.  The B.A.R. issues it’s own B.A.R. Cards, not licenses, and their requirements are made by their Rules.

The New Hampshire B.A.R. Supreme Court created it’s own rules for this requirement in the sneakiest way imaginable.  Article 73-a was added to the Constitution.  After the Article passed through the House, AFTER, they weaseled in a clause, “…Rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law.”  That’s how they coerce the B.A.R. agenda upon anyone who wishes to uphold the real rule of law over the foreign B.A.R. Courts.

Well worth mention, there’s a STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Family Court “Rule 1.2 – Waiver of Rules.”  Their rules can be law, then they can waive their rules!  The B.A.R. does what it wants, while the people are oblivious.

Now, the stinking B.A.R. is pushing U.N. upon us like no-one has ever seen before.  They’re nothing but Agents for the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bankster whores who just cannot get enough.  These Pirates are robbing us of our lives.  They’re the ones stealing our homes in fraudclosure.  These are the Pirates stealing our kids.  They’re making money by putting people in prison for smoking a weed that grows in nature.  These creeps need to be prosecuted by everyone until they’re destroyed.

If their authority is not created by law, then they’re not accountable to law.  This is why they rape and plunder everything and everyone.  They do whatever they please.  The only thing they’ll comprehend is PROSECUTION.  Demand their proof of Legislative Authority.  They want to prosecute people for practicing law without a license, when THEY DON’T HAVE ONE!!!  All they have is a stinking UNION CARD.  They’re nothing but two bit hoods.  If B.A.R. Attorneys had a real guts, they’d commit more respectable crimes, like snatching purses from little old grandmothers.  Show them no respect, because they don’t deserve any.  They’re ruining America for the Crown.

Much of the material in this Article comes from a great guy, Rod Class.  You’ll hear him in this Video.  This is very important.  Spread this to others, so they can discover Rod’s work.  Enjoy!

LAWYERS & THEIR SUPPOSED AUTHORITY

LISTEN TO THIS AUDIO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vieooNH-SkE

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Common Law vs. Admiralty Law, People vs. Persons

04/29/2016

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/04/common-law-v-admiralty-law-people-v.html

12-5-2015 10-34-35 AM

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

by Anna Von Reitz

Our Forefathers CHOSE the system of Common Law based on the Law of Moses (Ten Commandments) as the Law of the Land and they chose men to serve as judges from among themselves in every county, state, and region.

If we want to live under that system of law, we have to do the same thing. CHOOSE to live under Common Law, form a jural assembly for our communities as brilliantly summarized by the Michigan Jural Assembly which has already had their Common Law System in place for decades, elect judges to fill the vacant judicial offices, and live accordingly.

This is the way this country was set up and so far as I am concerned, the way it is still supposed to run.  Those who don’t want to accept that are outlaws.  Those who do are law abiding.  Simple as that.

We are free to accept, amend, and reject laws within that system as every jury sees fit. That is why we have JURY NULLIFICATION  built into this whole process.

ANY law passed by ANY legislative body in the Common Law System can be nullified by a body of twelve honest Americans sitting as a jury.  Such a jury can rewrite a law they find unfair or impractical or they can utterly reject one they find unjust, vague, or unworkable.

Jury nullification is where the average people called to jury duty get to enforce their will on the entire system— in Common Law, that is. Also, in Common Law, the judge serves the people– he doesn’t tell them what to do.  He doesn’t interpret the law.  The jury does that.  He listens to the arguments along with the jury, maintains fair rules of evidence and argument, asks questions, but at the end of the day, the JURY makes their own decision and the judge executes their sentence.

That is also why there is no appeal from a jury trial unless substantial new evidence likely to have changed their reasoning comes to light.  The JURY interprets and speaks the law under Common Law and what they decide becomes the law, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The judge is just a referee and servant of the court and the clerk is just that, a clerk keeping good records of the proceedings and testimony, evidence and filings.

There are other marked characteristics of Common Law that you need to be aware of;  Under Common Law, nobody can be summoned to a court without a presentment from a Grand Jury.

Under Common Law, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Under Common Law, there has to be an actual, identifiable injured party— someone has to stand up and accuse you of harming them or their own property.

The only exception is in the case of murder or disabling injury of a victim, such that the injured party cannot bring suit for themselves.

There is no such thing as a “victimless crime” under Common Law.

The Judges in Common Law, (or, to use their proper name, Justices) are not necessarily graduates of any Law School and they cannot be members of the Bar Association, rather,  they are respected members of their community who are trusted to make fair decisions about rules of evidence and argument and to oversee courtroom proceedings so as to guarantee a fair trial.

That’s really their only function, because remember— under Common Law — the people sitting on the jury make all the decisions.  The Justice is just there to organize things properly and impose a level playing field for both sides to get a fair hearing of the issues.

This is the system that we are heir to once we clearly decide to adopt our birthright status as American State Nationals.

But this is NOT the system that we have been living under for the last umpteen years, because we have all been “mistaken on purpose” as “citizens of the United States” instead.

That phrase, a “citizen of the United States” means in the words of Kitchens v. Steele, “a citizen of the federal government”. And the federal government is defined as a corporation doing business as the UNITED STATES.

Such “citizens” live under the international law of the sea, not the Common Law.

In their courts the judge is all-powerful and juries are rubber stamps for him.

The judge interprets the law in these admiralty courts, tells the jury what to think, tells the jury what they may or may not consider as evidence, tells the jury everything but how to wipe their noses.

Their courts operate just as everyone can see them operating—- as prejudicial military tribunals where everyone is considered guilty until proven innocent and where no constitutional guarantees apply.

In their courts, there are endless codes and statutes and regulatory infractions and abundant cases of victim-less crimes.

The majority of cases in such courts never present an actual injured party and both plaintiffs and defendants are represented by attorneys acting as Third Parties giving hearsay evidence that would be immediately thrown out of any Common Law court.

You all know or should know that you are supposed to be operating as people on the land and not as persons on the sea. The Preamble of the Constitution doesn’t read, “We, the Persons…..”

If you are going to live as free people you also have cause to know that you have choices to make both about your political status — “people” or “person”, Common Law or Admiralty or some other law form entirely— and that you are then also required then to know how your chosen system of law works.

You are being misidentified and mis-characterized as “citizens of the United States” with “United States” defined as  “territories and District of Columbia” and you are being treated as  “persons” because you aren’t standing up and declaring your allegiance to your lawful state of the Union and you aren’t filling your vacated public offices and running your own American Common Law Courts.

Mulligan Ex Parte very clearly states that wherever our American Common Law Courts are up and operating, the admiralty courts must cease operating as military tribunals and revert to their proper place as courts merely concerned with actual maritime contracts and other admiralty issues.

These foreign international courts which are doing so much damage to our property and our people are merely opportunists filling a gap that we left open through ignorance. When our courts stand on the land, their courts cannot usurp— but when we allow our Common Law Court System to stand vacant, the cat is away and the rats can play.

I can hear some people asking— what do you mean, our courts are vacant?  How?  When? Why?

It’s simple, really,  It happened through ignorance and pen strokes and greed.

The moment you incorporate anything, it leaves the jurisdiction of the land and sets sail on the international jurisdiction of the sea.  So the simple act of incorporating a county government changes its jurisdiction and its character and its law form.

It never mattered if the “federal government” acted as a corporation because all of its duties assigned by the actual Constitution were international in nature. They were assigned and limited to international jurisdiction and under international law from the start.

The state and county governments on the other hand, are responsible for operating the land jurisdiction. That’s why our states and counties are geographically defined and the reason that they all have borders.

But back in the 1960’s all those organizations that were entrusted with running the state and county governments at that time were seduced by the lure of “Federal Revenue Sharing”—- a cut of the kickbacks from federal racketeering— into signing up as incorporated franchises of the federal government— that is, as franchises of the federal corporation doing business as the UNITED STATES, INC.

Now, just because all those organizations took the bait and obligated themselves and incorporated themselves  and agreed to act as franchises (like Dairy Queen franchises) does NOT mean that you can’t form your own unincorporated state and county governments to do the job you still need done.  The important word here is: “unincorporated”.

The land and Law of the Land and people are all part of the unincorporated Body Politic.  The international

You have to elect Sheriffs to represent the land jurisdiction and to enforce the actual Constitution and Organic Laws, because with the stroke of a pen back in the 1960’s, the Sheriff of the newly incorporated “County” became a law enforcement officer concerned with statutes and regulations and code enforcement instead.  He stopped working for you, and started working for the local federal government corporation franchise instead.

Your Common Law Court System which had existed since the early 1600’s disappeared, too. Why?  Because the people then operating the courts, back circa 1950 to 1965, incorporated them as part of the newly incorporated state and county franchise operations, and thereby converted our courts into an admiralty court system instead.

If you want your Common Law Court System back and functioning and want to send these foreign admiralty courts packing, you have to set your county and state courts up as unincorporated Jural Assemblies.  Thankfully, there have always been Americans who stayed awake.

The Michigan Jural Assembly organized their state and kept it organized through thick and thin. The Nation States Project came forward and filed its claim to Pennsylvania.  The Union States Assembly kept the fires burning on the Eastern Seaboard.  In Texas, in Colorado, in Florida, in Wisconsin, in New Mexico, in California and throughout the land—- by Townships and Parishes and even Home Owner Associations— Americans have kept their local governments alive and denied the corporate interlopers any claim of “exclusive legislative jurisdiction”.

And now that more and more people are waking up and realizing just how far down the tubes things have gotten without their participation, Americans are stepping forward by the millions and doing what needs to be done.

Ignorant men have raised objections to what I and Bruce Doucette and Gary Darby and many other Americans are doing by occupying the vacated offices and acting as judges serving  the American Common Law Court System.  They think that we are somehow impersonating offices in the admiralty court system, which is obviously and abundantly untrue.

They also think that we have to be members of the Bar Associations—- when in fact we can’t be members of the Bar and serve in any American Common Law Court office whatsoever.

They think that we are offering to oppress them in some way or establish an additional unwanted or improper authority over them, but the fact is that they have the same choice they have always had—- they can function as “persons” and submit themselves to international admiralty law, or they can function as “people” and submit themselves to the law of the land.

We are simply choosing our traditional law form and organizing ourselves to provide Common Law Court services for the land jurisdiction of these United States, and thereby exercising a prerogative that has always been ours.

Each one of us has the ability and responsibility to choose our political status and our form of law and to act accordingly. It would be just as wrong for us to force anyone to act as one of the “people” of these United States as it would be wrong for them to force us to act as a “person” under international admiralty law.

Which is the whole point.

They are free to identify themselves as “citizens of the United States” with “United States” defined as “territories and District of Columbia”.  They can operate as “persons” if they want to adopt that status and they can incorporate federal franchise “STATES” to serve their needs. We won’t stop them.

And by the same stroke, we can identify ourselves as members of the “free, independent, and sovereign people of the United States” —– these United States of Wisconsin, Oregon, Texas, and so on, which are the actual organic states of the Union, and we can operate our lawful government owed to the land jurisdiction of this country to serve our needs.

Recently, there has been a flap with the ironically named “National Liberty Alliance” and its leadership.  They have ignorantly and falsely accused us of “insurrection”.   If anyone is guilty of insurrection against these United States, it is those presently operating admiralty courts on our soil and practicing personage-for-profit against the people of this country.

We, the people, are the living, actual, factual government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  There is no such government of the person, for the person, and by the person– a fact that those who adopt “person-hood’ should consider carefully and well.

Believe me, our ancestors had no trouble recognizing how a Common Law court works (think John Wayne) versus how Admiralty Court works!!!  And we have to get to a point where all this is common knowledge now.

So in answer to your question– once people decide to act as people and not as persons, as free men and not slaves, they can also choose the form of law they live under, and can operate that system as it is supposed to operate.

See this article and over 200 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com


How To Identify Liars and Fools — They Talk About “Sovereign Citizens”.

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/04/how-to-identify-liars-and-fools-they.html

by Anna Von Reitz

There is no such thing.

It is a literal impossibility to be a “sovereign” and a “citizen” at the same time.

“Sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron.

The term “sovereign” cancels out the term “citizen” and vice versa.

Look up the legal definition of these two words and it will be absolutely, glaringly, and forever apparent.

So if you hear people talking about “sovereign citizens” or calling me or anyone else a “sovereign citizen”—- you now know for sure that they are in fact either (1) ignorant as Pat’s Pig or (2) are part of the problem and trying to cause trouble by “labeling”—- a propaganda technique which you probably first encountered in grade school.

“Oh, Jenny is a ………” and “Johnny is a…….” and so and so is something else.

Anyone who survived High School should hear this kind of gossip and have a retch response.

I do.

And I immediately “tune out” such people, because Number One— they are divisive, and Number Two, if they don’t know the difference between “sovereign” and “citizen”—-what can they possibly contribute to the conversation?

The phrase that they are probably striving for and getting all bungled up is, “sovereigns without subjects”— from United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay: “…..at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they truly are the sovereigns of this country, but they are sovereigns without subjects.”
quoted in ALDEN v. MAINE, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (2).

Please note— we are talking about “people” being the “sovereigns” of this country, not “persons” being sovereign over themselves or anything else.

That is again why we are owed a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not of the persons, by the persons, and for the persons.

Wake up, wake up, wake up….

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 


Government-Sponsored Corporatism Leading to Rise of Populism

04/28/2016

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/government-sponsored-corporatism-is-leading-to-rise-of-populism/

By Daily Bell Staff

Campaign’s Populist Tone Rankles America’s CEOs …  Chief executives at big American companies are increasingly frustrated by the populist tone of the presidential campaign, and concerns are mounting in boardrooms and corner offices that anti-business rhetoric may solidify even after the November election. – Wall Street Journal

This Wall Street Journal article makes the point that Trump has positioned himself at the head of an increasingly anti-business GOP.

More:

The GOP “has been captured by a large number of people who basically do not like big,” said Judd Gregg, a Republican former U.S. senator and governor of New Hampshire, who sits on the board of Honeywell International Inc.

By default, there’s nothing wrong with “big.” Theoretically, big business can mean economies of scale and economic efficiency. The oversized corporations of the US, however, are not natural products of the market. Instead, they are the artificial results of government policy.

As we’ve often pointed out, there are three areas where judicial force has been applied, swelling corporations to titanic sizes.

The first is intellectual property rights.

If corporations had to protect their own trade secrets rather than relying on government to do it for them, it is very probable that many corporations would be a good deal smaller.

The second is corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood makes it a good deal easier for individuals to avoid culpability for corporate acts.

Those lodged within a corporation can often avoid penalties that would otherwise expose them to significant personal jeopardy. Because they stay in charge, continuity isn’t disrupted and exceptionally aggressive corporate strategies can be maintained.

The third area is monopoly central banking.

Monopoly fiat money benefits the world’s largest corporations inordinately. The money coming out of central banks, especially Western central banks, often finds its way to the largest multinationals first, providing significant liquidity to these massive entities.

There are other ways that “big business” is artificially supported and propped up in the West, but these seem to be the most significant.

To claim that the current US “populist” environment is anti-big business is to radically misconstrue the reality of American capitalism.

American capitalism has very little about it that is laissez-faire.

US judicial decisions have created an environment in which gigantic corporations can flourish.

Thomas Jefferson and other founders were so worried about corporate bigness that corporate creation was lodged at the state rather than the federal level.

It was only after the Civil War that judicial decisions began to lay the groundwork for the modern corporate state.

The modern corporate state is almost antithetical to the agrarian republicanism that Jefferson and others had envisioned – a free-market republicanism that was responsible for initial US growth.

This Wall Street Journal radically misrepresents the reality of business in the US and throughout the West.

Rhetoric from Republican candidates has grown more populist and less friendly to big business than at any time in decades, while the Democratic race is being influenced by the rise of liberal Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Some of these instincts gave rise to the tea-party movement in 2009 and sent dozens of more conservative lawmakers to Washington the following year, fueling gridlock on Capitol Hill.

In the past, The Daily Bell has very clearly identified Tea Party sentiments with an underlying free-market instinct present in the US since its founding.

In fact, this sentiment was present in the US long before the Constitution.

Instinctively, people know that “big business” does not present a competitive, free-market profile.

The US and the West generally have developed a system more aptly characterized as “corporatism.”

Entrepreneurialism continues to diminish in the US. Regulations, taxes and the underlying judicial support for larger corporations are making it increasingly difficult for people to make even a modest living.

A recent article over at Infowars, entitled, “Authorities Fear Civil Unrest, Buy Up Gear To Arrest, Disperse, Control Riots,” reported on the growing popular frustration with the direction of US society.

Riot control systems are expected to “generate revenues of over USD 3.5 billion by the end of 2020,” with North America being one of the primary growth areas for upgraded weapons due to “militarization of the police department and other law enforcement agencies.”

The article also mentioned recent comments by top insurer Lloyds in a report warning of a “pandemic of global civil unrest that could go viral, threatening international stability.”

Market-based economies generate entrepreneurial republicanism – a system that encourages both freedom and prosperity.

The US’s “Fortune 500” approach to “big business,” encourages the mingling of government power with titanic private interests. Over time, this trend creates corporatism, which can also be described as fascism.

The inter-locking, anti-freedom environment of modern Western society is generating increasing push-back for a number of reasons. It’s not a trend that will likely diminish.

Conclusion:  As always, we encourage independence – a “prepper” mentality – focused on personal preparedness. What happens to the larger society is beyond your control, but you can have an impact on your own personal environment.           And you should.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the way of life that we all have prepared for is now impossible to sustain, due to the one world order being implemented, so what can we do to stop it? The answer is much simpler than one might suspect. Stop participating! Do not use your credit cards, do not let the media industry scare you, do not waste your money preparing for the end of the world, do what you must to preserve your future, but don’t prepare for armed resistance unless you want to die or rot in prison. We have reached the point where the government totally ignores our complaints, so just refuse to participate in all things that give them more power over you. If we try armed resistance, they will know our every move, our abilities, weapons, amount of supplies to sustain a fight, everything! Be a non-participant in any and everything that makes them more powerful. In short, STARVE THE BEAST! Use your own imagination and stop participating in their game. Just ignore the bastards.

10 13 11 flagbar

 


The Real Reason Saudi Arabia Killed Doha

04/26/2016

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Real-Reason-Saudi-Arabia-Killed-Doha.html

By Rakesh Upadhyay

Saudi Arabia single-handedly scuttled the Doha meeting, knowing all along that Iran would not participate, with a valid reason. The Russians and others agreed to proceed without Iran, planning to include them at a later date. So if everything was known beforehand, why did the Saudi’s pour cold water on the aspirations of the remaining members, risking its alienation from Russia and the OPEC community?

Was it simply Saudi enmity toward Iran? Not exactly. Upon closer scrutiny, we can find the Saudi masterstroke behind Doha.

It is well known that Saudi Arabia is heavily dependent on oil revenues, and that those revenues are on the brink of collapse. They have sought financial aid from various international agencies to support their dwindling economy. But the trick here is to determine exactly how desperate the Saudis are. Certainly not as desperate as other countries.

Angola has recently sought support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Venezuela’s struggles started well before crude prices dropped to 12-year lows and is fighting to avoid a disaster. Azerbaijan has also approached the IMF and the World Bank for help.

Nigeria is also seeking the World Bank’s support. Without external support, Iraq will find it difficult to continue its war against the Islamic State (ISIS). Lower oil prices continue to make matters worse, and Iraqi Kurdistan has taken advantage of the situation and works towards independence and beefing up its unilateral export plans. Ecuador is the worst hit, and now the devastating earthquake has crippled the nation. It will need help from the IMF, the World Bank and a few other lenders to reconstruct.

Related: $91 Billion In Capex Cuts, A Serious Hangover For Oil

After a 3.5 percent contraction in 2015, Russia’s gross domestic product will take a further 1.5 percent hit in 2016, as projected by the Central Bank. Kazakhstan is faring no better. Its growth shrunk to 1.2 percent in 2015 from an impressive 6 percent in 2013 and is expected to slow down further to 0.1 percent in 2016.

Most of the participating nations are financially ruined. They have to undertake drastic measures to reduce their dependence on oil. Disaster is imminent.

The Saudis are definitely not immune, even if on the surface disaster isn’t obvious. Saudi Arabia is burning through its reserves at a record pace, but at the same time, it can sustain low prices for the next three to four years. Not only that, it can increase its production by another 2 million barrels per day, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), if more funds are required.

But why the drastic action on the eve of the meeting disregarding the plight of the participating member nations?

Though the real reason for the about face is known only in the secretive halls of the royal palace, consider this:

Saudi Arabia has held the mantle as the world leader in oil for decades, and has largely enjoyed veto power on all things concerning oil. However, since 2014, it has waged a losing battle against the U.S. shale oil drillers, who are phenomenally more resilient than anyone expected.

Related: Low Oil Price Thwarts Wider LNG Adoption in Shipping—For Now

The first signs of the shale producer vulnerability are now, however, becoming visible, with oil production in the U.S. dropping below 9 million barrels a day—the lowest in 18 months. If oil prices continue to remain below $40 per barrel, a few more shale oil producers will fall by the wayside.

But if crude prices rise above $50 per barrel, the shale producers have made their intentions clear, that they will be back in business.

If Saudi Arabia had accepted the deal, oil prices would have jumped to $50/b, giving the shale oil industry a new lease on life. Shale producers would have started pumping at a frantic pace, increasing the glut and pushing oil prices back down.

This whole exercise would permanently dent Saudi Arabia’s reputation as the leading oil player. The baton would have passed to the shale oil drillers—an event that the Saudis simply cannot allow.

With Iran’s return post-sanctions, Saudi Arabia’s leadership in OPEC is under threat. By scuttling the meeting, Saudi Arabia has asserted its supremacy and reminded the OPEC nations just how much power the Saudis still wield.

Related: Oil Price Rally Unwinds As Strike In Kuwait Ends

The Saudis have ascertained their importance in the new cartel as well. They have not let Russia assume sole leadership, they have ensured that they remain at the centre of any decision making in the new cartel.

By voicing their objection to the meeting, Saudi Arabia has attempted to win back the leadership baton from American shale producers. It has shown the OPEC members that it still is the leader, thereby blocking Iran from challenging it, and finally, it has maintained its importance in the new bigger cartel, demanding an equal say in the scheme of things alongside Russia.

The Doha washout was the Saudi masterstroke to regain its importance. However, with many OPEC nations on the edge of collapse, the next OPEC meeting will confirm if the Saudi move was indeed a masterstroke, or if it was just a short-lived power grab.

By Rakesh Upadhyay for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

If you have read both articles I posted today, surely your head is spinning over the natural resource manipulation going on by the tyrants pushing for global control of everything. Here is the bottom line of all this manipulation and theft through control. Either you join up with those who will fight to the death to preserve their freedom or you will die a miserable death from starvation and exposure. Knowledge of what has been going on behind your back because you were too busy pursuing entertainment can only be obtained from reading the works of we who had our heads above the sewer of pleasure. It requires discipline and knowledge to preserve freedom from tyrants. You cannot play in a war!

10 13 11 flagbar

 


Finally a Simple Fraud Killing Remedy

04/25/2016

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/04/finally-simple-fraud-killing-remedy.html

Finally, Thank God and Thanks to Many People, a Remedy That Cannot Be Stopped or Side-Stepped or Ignored  —- Judge Anna

 First, please be patient with yourself as you read through these facts.  It took years of hard labor by dozens of good people to ferret out each little piece of this.  It’s going to take you at least an hour or two to take it in and follow the logic to its inexorable conclusion.

When you get to the end, you will find a template that lays out the very simple one-page Fraud Killer.  This does not mean that you should abandon your efforts to document your own identity and proper standing and that of your relatives—but you now have in your hands a very powerful means to break the shackles of the Great Fraud.

Definition(s) of “United States” and “UNITED STATES” and “United States of America” and “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”…..

Note the date and by what entity— an “acting” Congress during the Civil War—this was done:

1864— the “acting Congress” passed an Act changing the meaning of “state, States and United States” to mean “the territories and District of Columbia”.  (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864.

[“US Territories”—- portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states.  Includes all federal installations—military bases, docks, courthouses, etc.]

This was never changed, amended or appealed, so, all references to “state, States, and United States” in Federal Code that are not otherwise specifically defined, must be construed as “the territories and District of Columbia”.

You must also make a distinction between the meaning of the words used prior to and then after the passage of this 1864 corporate law.

Prior to this, “state, States, and United States” meant what we commonly still believe them to mean— after 1864 in “Federal Code”—they generally meant something entirely different and opposed to the popular meaning.

Three Crucial Definitions, Plus a Fourth in Commerce:

“ The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. (1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (that is, the territories and District of Columbia) extends, or (3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.” — Hooven and Allison Company v. Evatt, 324 US 652 (1945)   (This is also the verbatim definition of “United States” given in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.)

Additionally…. we have definition (4) thanks to:  The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, Congress chartered a Federal Company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment [which the record indicates was never ratified— see Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484.]

Please note:  that The  Act of 1871 —“An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871 — was repealed in 1874 and then passed piecemeal via these actions—- “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)) .

When looking at the intent of all this, given that the actual District of Columbia was set up in 1790 and fully chartered by 1801, the aim of the Act of 1871 is, as it must be, merely to set up “U.S. Corp”—

“That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the “District of Columbia”, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.” – Act of 1871 verbiage—

So the Act of 1871 was to create a private corporation owned by the actual government of the District of Columbia— thus the birth of the infamous District of Columbia Municipal Corporation: 

The only “government” created by the Act of 1871 was that of any private corporation which determines its own administrative rules and structures…….that is, the US Corp dba “UNITED STATES”  is not merely the name of an incorporated municipality (District of Columbia)— it is the name of a private corporation (District of Columbia Municipal Corporation) that was created by the “acting Congress” via the Act of 1877 and as amended ever since.

Few Americans realize that there are all these definitions for the “United States.” Most have been misled to believe that the term “United States” has a single meaning and is a generic term referring to the country as a whole–However, in Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is also the name of a corporation, as just demonstrated from the public records.

Does the UNITED STATES – the private corporation operating the government of  “the Territories and District of Columbia” have “citizens”?

1873:  U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States (”United States” meaning “territories and District of Columbia”) is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.”  (That is a “citizen of the United States” is a “statutory citizen”—created by legislative action.)

1875 – This definition of  “United States” as a Corporation has its own citizens (see United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542) who are generally referred to as United States citizens.

1953 – Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383  “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government…”

1967 – Also Congressional Record , June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646):   A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

[This neatly explains once and for all what a “citizen of the United States” is in federal parlance, as opposed to popular speech, and underlines the need for Americans to forthrightly expatriate from any such “citizenship” and  instead declare their allegiance to the land of their nativity, for example, California or Nevada or Ohio.] 

Diversity of citizenship exists when opposing parties in a lawsuit are citizens of different states or a citizen of a foreign country. If the party is a corporation, it is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated or is doing business. If diversity of citizenship exists, it places the case under federal court jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

The same duplicitous wordsmithing was done with the words “United States of America”—

From  A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier, published 1856:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.   (First meaning given):

(1) The name of this country. [That is, the actual land mass.] The United States, now thirty-one in number, are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and California.”

 (Fifth meaning): (5)—The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property, 1 Marsh, Dec. 177, 181, but it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law.

So what does all this tell us?  So far as the federal government is concerned the phrase “United States” has meant “the territories and District of Columbia” since 1864, and the “United States Corporation” has been the “government” of the “territories and District of Columbia” since 1877.

A similar thing was done with the phrase “United States of America” in which it was used as the name of this country, but  then also used to name a corporation— the “United States of America, Inc.”

It is these two privately owned and operated corporations which have been bankrupted consecutively— “the United States of America, Inc.” in 1933 and the UNITED STATES entered into insolvency as of March 2015.

When it is announced that the “UNITED STATES” is insolvent, what does that mean?  It means that the corporation operating “as” the government of the “territories and District of Columbia” is insolvent and subject to liquidation of its assets.

And who — or what — is on the hook to pay for all this?

All the “citizens of the UNITED STATES” which this corporation created out of thin air to benefit itself and which it has operated under your names—- JOHN MARK DOE and MABEL HELEN RHODES and JEAN MARIE FITZPATRICK…. as “a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.”

Here you can clearly see that both the USA, Inc. and the US, Inc. are acting in collusion to bilk and indebt the unsuspecting American People by mischaracterizing them and their political status.

What has been done here is nothing less than “slavery by proxy”.  

A corporate franchise has been named after you, and then, you have been coerced and deceived into accepting the debts of that franchise via a “similar names” deceit. 

Prior to 1933  a Foreign Situs Trust created by the USA, Inc. was named after a living man called “John Frederick Doe” and  this Foreign Situs Trust was then also gratuitously named as a Surety for the bankrupt  USA, Inc’s debts.  The actual man named John Frederick Doe was then pursued and forced to pay the debts owed in fact by this corporation.  In 1999 that bankruptcy settled and the American People paid off every penny of it.

In approximately 1944 the US. Inc., named a Cestui Que Vie Trust after the living man called “JOHN FREDERICK DOE” and this estate trust was named as the Surety for the US Inc.’s debts.  The actual man named John Frederick Doe was then pursued and forced to pay the debts owed by this corporate franchise, too.

This past year, 2015,  President Obama acting as the CEO in charge of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.  (the USA, Inc’s latest rendition organized under the laws of the United Nations City-State) announced the creation of a new franchise named after “John Frederick Doe”— a franchise of a bankrupt Puerto Rican Electric Utility named “JOHN F. DOE” operated under the laws of Puerto Rico.

Meanwhile the living American who is the Holder in Due Course of the given name “John Frederick Doe” and who is in fact the owner and executor of his name and all derivatives thereof associated with him, is being subjected to false charges and racketeering on a scale unique in world history.

So…… What to DO about it?

In order to answer that, you need a few more definitions and research….

What is NATIONALITY?  –“That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, “nationality” is also used as opposed to “territoriality,” for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory.”  –The Law Dictionary.

Please note that nationality can be applied according to the country—the land— where you are born, whereas citizenship is a legal status adopted when you are registered with the government in some country.

Nationality can also be an inheritance from one’s parents as when a child is born to Americans living overseas, but one only becomes a citizen of a country via the adoption of a political status.

You can’t change your nationality, but you can change your citizenship, i.e., political status.

Every American–except first generation immigrants– was born on the land of one of the American states or born to parents or grandparents who were, and so by (1) birthright or by (2) inheritance, every American  is naturally an American State National, and not a “citizen of the United States”.

You are a native of Florida or Wisconsin or Texas….and your proper nationality is as a Floridian, Wisconsinite or Texan….. and so on, and during your lifetime you do not “belong to” the organic state being referenced, instead, the state—the land— belongs to you.

But then, a dirty trick was played on your Mother at the hospital. People she trusted came to her and told her that it was the “law” that she has to sign certain papers.  Unknown to her, those papers register her baby as a “citizen of the United States”—- and we already know what that means. The baby is “seized upon” as a surety backing the debts of the USA, Inc. and the US, Inc. and via the illicit copyrighting of his given name, the baby is identified as chattel property belonging to these private mostly foreign owned corporations.

However, fraud vitiates everything.  It destroys all contracts and presumptions.  It taints everything it touches.  All Americans subjected to this undisclosed process have been defrauded and mischaracterized and deprived of their lawful status.  There is no statute of limitations on the crime of fraud and it is recognized as crime in all venues and jurisdictions of law, national and international and global.

Okay, so….

Sorting the Poop from the Shinola….

Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States (read that, “territories and the District of Columbia”), or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States (again, “territories and the District of Columbia”).”  Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals.  Non-citizen nationality status refers only to individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States.

This is all talking about “citizens of the United States” that is, “citizens of the federal government corporation”.

INA § 349 states that a citizen, whether a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization [JOHN FREDERICK DOE is a U.S. citizen by process of “naturalization”] shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing certain acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality. The fact of intention is critical; it is not the mere performance of the actions mentioned in § 349.

Seven types of conduct are currently listed in the INA as expatriative. The potentially expatriating acts are: (1) applying for and obtaining naturalization in a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (2) making an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (3) serving in the military of a foreign country as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States; (4) serving in a foreign government position that requires an oath of allegiance to or the nationality of that foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (5) making a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship to a consular officer outside of the United States; (6) making a formal renunciation of citizenship while in the United States and during time that the United States is involved in a war; and (7) conviction for treason or attempting by force to overthrow the U.S. government [that is, corporation], including conspiracy convictions.

Now, finally, consider this supremely important information regarding the separate and “foreign” status of the United States defined as “territories and District of Columbia” (1864) with regard to the actual several states forming the United States (definition (3) from the Hooven case) —-nailed down by “The Informer”:

A key authority on this question (is the federal “United States” a foreign entity with respect to the states of the United States?)  is the case of Hanley v. Donoghue, in which the U.S. Supreme Court defined separate bodies of State law as being legally “foreign” with respect to each other:

“No court is to be charged with the knowledge of foreign laws;  but they are well understood to be facts which must, like other facts, be proved before they can be received in a court of justice.  [cites omitted]  It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other, and that the courts of one state are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to take judicial notice of, the laws of another state.”

[Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535]

[6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885)]

Another key U.S. Supreme Court authority on this question is the case of In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).  The authors of Corpus Juris Secundum (“CJS”), a legal encyclopedia, relied in part upon this case to arrive at the following conclusion about the “foreign” corporate status of the federal government:

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”  [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287]

[19 C.J.S. 883]

Before you get the idea that this meaning of “foreign” is now totally antiquated, consider the current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, which defines “foreign state” very clearly, as follows:

“The several United States*** are considered “foreign” to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. …  The term “foreign nations,” as used in a statement of the rule that the laws of foreign nations should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought;  and hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule.”

And a recent federal statute proves that Congress still refers to the 50 States as “countries”.  When a State court in Alaska needed a federal judge to handle a case overload, Congress amended Title 28 to make that possible.  In its reference to the 50 States, the statute is titled the “Assignment of Judges to courts of the freely associated compact states”. Then, Congress refers to these freely associated compact states as “countries”:

(b)   The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) ….  [!!!]

[28 U.S.C. 297, 11/19/88]”  — End quote.

So here is the Big Picture

The government of the “United States” (read that as: “the territories and District of Columbia” per the 1864 redefinition) is a corporation also called the “UNITED STATES” or “U.S. Corp” or “US, Inc.” set up by the Act of 1877.

That corporation doing business as the US, Inc., and a similar corporation operating as the USA, Inc., have been creating “citizens” for themselves out of thin air, defined as corporate “persons” of various kinds, named after living Americans.

All of these foreign corporate franchises named after you are “citizens of the United States” — meaning (4), “citizens of the United States” or as Kitchens v. Steele put it, “citizens of the federal government” [i.e., corporation].

Currently, the US, Inc. version is doing business as a Cestui Que Vie Estate Trust under the name “JOHN FREDERICK DOE” or whatever your “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” name may be, operated out of Puerto Rico.

The USA, Inc. version is doing business as a franchise of a bankrupt Puerto Rican Electric Utility under the name “JOHN F. DOE” or whatever your “FIRST MIDDLE-INITIAL LAST” name may be.  Again, Puerto Rico, a Commonwealth Protectorate of the United States is operating as a semi-autonomous Home Base for all this crime against Americans.

Take all this information into a nice, big, sticky Ball of Wax and what do you get?

(1) Since “JOHN FREDERICK DOE” is a naturalized “citizen of the United States”, “HE” can be expatriated by INA 349 (2)  “making an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old” and (2) since the actual states of the Union are all foreign countries with respect to the “United States” referenced, you can repatriate “JOHN FREDERICK DOE” to Wisconsin or Illinois or wherever else he rightfully came from by issuing an Oath of Allegiance to the land he was born on—Wisconsin, Texas, etc., and (3) Sending a certified copy of the new Oath of Allegiance signed by John Frederick Doe (your name substituted appropriately) to John Forbes Kerry, the US (Corporation) Secretary of State, telling him that “JOHN” is expatriating and going home and by the way— all his assets are due and owing as a Priority Creditor of the UNITED STATES.  Please send a copy to the United Nations Secretary General and ask him to notify the UN Bankruptcy Trustees presently trying to liquidate the assets of the UNITED STATES, so they can exclude JOHN FREDERICK DOE from the asset roster.

Same thing with “JOHN F. DOE”.

And there isn’t a thing these con artists in suits can say, do, or complain about, because their other option is to admit to their crimes in front of the whole world.

“John Frederick Doe” —is still standing on terra firma, still have your wits about you, and are still able to say that you are a “Citizen of these United States”.

Example:

Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance

Whereas “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” is a naturalized “citizen of the United States” under the Diversity Clause of the Constitution(s) and is the age of majority and whereas such “citizenship” was never desired nor intended nor willingly nor voluntarily entered into, “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” willingly and purposefully renounces all citizenship or other assumed political status related to the United States defined as “the territories and District of Columbia” (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864) and its government, a corporation doing business variously as the UNITED STATES, U.S. Corp, US, Inc., etc. formed under the Act of 1877, and does repatriate to the land of HIS birth known as Wisconsin (Texas, etc. as it applies) and does freely affirm HIS allegiance to the same actual and organic state of the Union and does accept HIS true Nationality as an American State National and an American State Vessel in all international commerce owned and operated by Doe, John Frederick of 1121 Petaluma Court, Felsburg, Florida, 10210.

This do I certify, Witness and confirm this _____day of _______, 2016.

______________________________ by John Frederick Doe, all rights reserved.

Notary Witness

Clark County

Florida State

Before me this _____day of ________ 2016 did appear one JOHN FREDERICK DOE and he did establish this Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance freely and without coercion, in Witness whereof I set my sign and seal.

_________________________________Notary; my commission expires on________________________.

Posted by Paul Stramer at 9:51 AM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Anna von Reitz, Fraud Killing Remedy, judge anna

6 comments:

Barry PattersonApril 24, 2016 at 10:36 AM

This is perfect! I’m executing mine post haste! A few questions for clarification:
1. Does the Florida address need to be changed to my current address? Or is this the address of the current “owner” of “my name”?
2. Is a separate one of these needed for each iteration, i.e. JOHN FREDERICK DOE and JOHN F. DOE? Or, should I include both iterations/all on the same document?
3. Should I sign using my normal signature, print, or use something different?
Thank you. If I can get mine done, I will help others too!

Barry PattersonApril 24, 2016 at 10:38 AM

One more question. Is there any advantage to using the county I was born in as opposed to the county I currently live in?

Mark ColwellApril 24, 2016 at 10:48 AM

Judge Anna,
What about continuing to use our driver’s licenses or passports as they are in all Caps?

Mark ColwellApril 24, 2016 at 10:57 AM

Would it also be advisable to send a copy to the IRS?

Linda EckertApril 24, 2016 at 2:49 PM

My Goodness .. what a lot of work has been undertaken for the benefit and enlightenment of the people. So many more questions .. we all can learn by undertaking our own venture from here. We appreciate your help and thank you more than words can say. Blessings

Margaret louiseApril 24, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Anna please answer the above questions as they are also mine and probably everyone who reads this. Also, if I was born in one state and have moved to another what state do I list?

More coming in.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

IT LOOKS TO ME THAT AUTHENTICATING A SLEW OF COMMON LAW LAWYERS IS NEEDED TO HELP PEOPLE ACQUIRE THEIR DOCUMENTATION. ANNA IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HELP EVERY UNDER EDUCATED HUMAN BEING IN AMERICA, AND THE EXISTING BUNCH OF ATTORNEYS ARE NOT GOING TO RISK THE WRATH OF THE BANKERS.

10 13 11 flagbar

 


ALBERT EDWARDS: Central bankers will destroy the “enfeebled” global economy and plunge the world into chaos

04/23/2016

http://www.businessinsider.com/societe-generales-albert-edwards-on-the-global-economy-2016-4

4-23-2016 8-33-48 AM.png

By Will Martin

Central bankers are going to destroy the “enfeebled” global economy and cause chaos across the world, according to notorious perma-bear Albert Edwards.

Edwards, a strategist with Societe Generale, is about as bearish as they come.

So far this year he has predicted that the US stock market will fall by 75%, argued that we might be heading for another massive global recession, said China will be forced to float the renminbi, and predicted a “tidal wave” of corporate defaults in the US.

As the voice of the market bears — people who think imbalances in the financial system will lead to a collapse — Edwards’ latest apocalyptic prediction focuses on the role of central bankers in what he sees as an inevitable economic collapse.

In a note sent to clients by Societe Generale on Friday, Edwards doesn’t hold back, saying that he is “utterly depressed.” He calls the ECB’s QE programme quick fix “nonsense,” and stating wearily “I’’m not really sure how much more of this I can take.”

The subject of Edwards’ ire is the world’s central bankers, who have “painted themselves into a corner with their overconfident rhetoric and monetary experiments.”

Here’s Edwards’ introduction (emphasis ours):

I am neither monetarist nor Keynesian. I see merit and demerit in both sides of a very fractious argument. But what I do know is when in the last few weeks I have heard that Janet Yellen sees no bubble in the US, when Ben Bernanke hones and restates his helicopter money speech, and when Mario Draghi says that the ECB’s policy of printing money and negative interest rates was working, I feel utterly depressed (I could also quote similar nonsense from Japan, the UK and China). I have not one scintilla of doubt that these central bankers will destroy the enfeebled world economy with their clumsy interventions and that political chaos will be the ugly result. The only people who will benefit are not investors, but anarchists who will embrace with delight the resulting chaos these policies will bring!

Edwards continues (emphasis ours):

I’’m not really sure how much more of this I can take. So here we are 5, 6 or is it now 7 years into this economic recovery and it still remains pathetically weak. And so it should in the wake of one of the biggest private sector credit bubbles in history. The de-leveraging hangover was always going to be massive and so it is.

Central banks across the globe are currently battling to stimulate inflation and growth by using near- and even sub-zero interest rates, and huge programmes of quantitative easing. So far nothing seems to be the silver bullet for growth, with negative interest rates in particular seen as something of a failure. Edwards argues that as well as failing to help normal people, monetary policy is making the rich richer, stirring anger and resentment among normal people.

Quick-fix monetary QE nonsense has made virtually no difference to the economic recoveries other than to inflate asset prices, make the rich richer, inequality worse and make Joe and Joanna Sixpack want to scream in rage.

He goes on to argue that the anger people are feeling about the weak economic recovery is being translated into support for populist political parties across Europe, echoing the comments of German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble, who last week blamed the ECB’s policies for helping encourage the rise of the extremist Alternative for Germany party.

4-23-2016 8-33-27 AM.png

Screenshot

Schauble reportedly said that he told Mario Draghi “you can attribute 50% of the results of a party that seems to be new and successful in Germany to the design of this [monetary] policy.” Draghi rebuffed that accusation strongly at yesterday’s ECB press conference, and restated the ECB’s independence saying: “We obey the law. Not politicians.”

However, Edwards backs up Schaeuble’s claim, saying: “The people are angry and they are lashing out” adding that people are “rejecting the establishment political parties and candidates at almost every electoral turn and seeking out more extreme alternatives at both ends of the political spectrum.”

The note finishes with Edwards reassert his belief that: “Central bankers are surely taking us down the road to perdition.”

NOW WATCH: Broadway’s biggest hit ‘Hamilton’ is making over $2 million a month — here’s why the producer thinks it could be making a lot more.

 10 13 11 flagbar


The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State

04/22/2016

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/cia-terrorism-cold-war-evil-national-security-state/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The following is Chapter 1 of The Future of Freedom Foundation’s newest ebook, The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger. Purchase the book for $1 here.

The two most important words in the lives of the American people for the past 60 years have been “national security.” The term has transformed American society for the worse. It has warped the morals and values of the American people. It has stultified conscience. It has altered the constitutional order. It has produced a democratically elected government that wields totalitarian powers.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to round up people, including citizens, and take them to concentration camps, detention centers, or military dungeons where the government can torture them, incarcerate them indefinitely, and even execute them as suspected terrorists.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to send its military and intelligence forces into any country anywhere in the world, kidnap people residing there, and transport them to a prison for the purpose of torture, indefinite detention, and even execution.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to sneak and peek into people’s homes or businesses without warrants; to monitor their emails, telephone calls, and financial transactions; and to spy on the citizenry.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to support, with money and armaments, totalitarian regimes all over the world and to enter into partnerships with them for the purpose of torturing people whom the U.S. government has kidnapped.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to assassinate anyone it wants, including American citizens, anywhere in the world, including here in the United States.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to impose sanctions and embargoes on any other nation and to severely punish the American people and foreign citizens and foreign companies who violate them.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to invade and occupy any country on earth, without a congressional declaration of war, for any purpose whatever, including regime change and the securing of resources.

And it’s all justified under the rubric of “national security.”

Most people would concede that that’s not the kind of country that America is supposed to be. The nation was founded as a constitutional republic, one whose governmental powers were extremely limited. In fact, the whole idea of using the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence was to make clear that the government’s powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution itself. To make certain that everyone got the point, the American people secured the passage of the Bill of Rights, which further clarified the extreme restrictions on government power.

Four separate amendments in the Bill of Rights address the power of the federal government to take people, both Americans and foreigners, into custody and to inflict harm on them: the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Due process of law, right to counsel, grand-jury indictments, trial by jury, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishments, bail, speedy trial — they are all expressly addressed, reflecting how important they were to our American ancestors and to their concept of a free society.

In the age of national security, all of those protections have been rendered moot. They have all been trumped by the concept of national security.

Ironically, the term isn’t even found in the Constitution. One searches in vain for some grant of power anywhere in that document relating to “national security.” It isn’t there. Nonetheless, the government now wields omnipotent powers — powers that the greatest totalitarian dictatorships in history have wielded — under the rubric of “national security.”

With the exception of libertarians, hardly anyone questions or challenges it, including those who profess an ardent allegiance to the Constitution. Consider, for example, the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. For decades, both libertarians and conservatives have complained that the meaning of that clause has been so expanded as to transform it into a general grant of power enabling the federal government to regulate the most minute, localized aspects of economic activity.

Yet here’s a phrase — “national security” — that isn’t even found in the Constitution, which has been interpreted to grant omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers to the federal government, and conservatives have been rendered mute.

It would be one thing if there had been an amendment to the Constitution stating, “The federal government shall have the power to do whatever it deems necessary in the interests of national security.” At least then one could argue that such totalitarian measures were constitutional.

But that’s not the situation we have here. We have the government coming up with a concept known as “national security,” which it has then used to adopt powers that would otherwise violate the Constitution. It’s as if national security has been made the foundation of the nation. Everything else — the Constitution, society, the citizenry, freedom, prosperity — are then based on that foundation.

The goodness of national security

What is “national security”? No one really knows. There is certainly no precise definition of the term. It’s actually whatever the government says it is. National security is one of the most meaningless, nebulous, nonsensical terms in the English language, but, at the same time, the most important term in the lives of the American people.

All the government has to do is say “national security,” and all discussion and debate shuts down. If the government says that national security is at stake, that’s the end of the story. Federal judges will immediately dismiss lawsuits as soon as the government claims, “The case is a threat to national security, your honor.” Congress will immediately suspend investigations when the government claims that national security is at stake. The Justice Department will defer to the national-security establishment when it raises the issue of national security.

National security, a term not even in the Constitution, trumps everything. It trumps the judiciary. It trumps the legislative branch of government. It trumps federal criminal investigations. This nebulous term, whose meaning is whatever the government wants it be at any particular time, has been made the foundation of American society.

What is the national-security establishment? It is composed of several agencies, two of the main ones being the vast military-industrial establishment and the CIA. Those two entities have done more to transform American life than anything else, even more than the welfare state. They are the entities that enforce the sanctions and embargoes and engage in the invasions, occupations, regime-change operations, coups, assassinations, torture, indefinite incarcerations, renditions, partnerships with totalitarian regimes, and executions — all in the name of “national security.”

One of the most fascinating aspects of all this is how successful the government has been in convincing Americans of two things: that all this is necessary to keep them safe and, at the same time, that America has continued to be a free country notwithstanding the fact that the government has acquired and has exercised totalitarian powers in order to preserve national security.

When Americans see the governments of such countries as the Soviet Union or North Korea wield such powers, they can easily recognize them as being totalitarian in nature. When Americans read that the Soviet government rounded up its own people and sent them into the Gulag, they recoil against the exercise of such totalitarian powers. They have the same reaction when they hear that the North Korean government has tortured people within its prison system. It’s the same when Americans hear that the Chinese government has arrested and incarcerated people for years without charges or trial.

But when the U.S. government does such things or even just claims the authority to do them — in the name of national security — the mindset of the average American automatically shifts. It can’t be evil for the U.S. government to wield such powers because the agents who are wielding them are Americans, not communists. They have an American flag on their lapel. They have children in America’s public schools. They’re doing it to keep us safe. They’re on our side. We wouldn’t be free without them. They’re preserving our national security.

In fact, another fascinating aspect to all this is the mindset of those within the national-security establishment itself. Even though they are wielding the same kinds of powers that are wielded by totalitarian regimes, the last thing in their minds is that they’re doing anything evil or immoral. In their mind, they’re fighting evil in order to preserve security and freedom. Sure, they have to do some unsavory things, but those things are necessary to preserve the nation. Americans are safe and free because of things they’re doing, and we’re supposed to be grateful that they’re doing them.

After all, as advocates of the national-security state often remind us, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If measures have to be taken to preserve the nation — or the security of the nation — that are inconsistent with the Constitution, then so be it. What good would it do to adhere strictly to the Constitution if, by doing so, the nation were to fall to the terrorists or the communists?

Thus, when officials in totalitarian regimes round people up without charges, incarcerate them indefinitely, torture them, and execute them, what they are doing is evil. But when officials within the U.S. national security state do those same things — and more — they look upon themselves as good and the citizenry look upon them in the same way, simply because they are doing it to advance freedom and to preserve the national security of the United States.

And even then, things are not so clear, at least not when it comes to national security. For example, some foreign totalitarian regimes are considered evil while others are considered good. Consider, for example, Iran and North Korea. In the mindset of the U.S. national-security establishment, they are considered to be evil totalitarian regimes. But then consider, say, Egypt, which has been ruled by a brutal military dictatorship for nearly 30 years, a totalitarian regime that wields the same kind of totalitarian powers that the U.S. government now wields. For decades, Egyptian military and intelligence forces have rounded people up, taken them to prison camps for indefinite detention, tortured them, and executed them, without formal charges and trial.

Nonetheless, the U.S. national-security establishment has long looked on the Egyptian military dictatorship as good, because of its close relationship with the U.S. national-security state. In fact, during the past several decades the U.S. government has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in money and armaments to Egypt to help fund its totalitarian military dictatorship, and there has been close cooperation between the national-security apparatuses of both nations. In fact, Egypt’s national-security state even agreed to serve as one of the U.S. empire’s rendition-torture partners, a relationship that enables U.S. officials to send a kidnapped victim to Egypt for the purpose of torture.

Good regime, bad regime

Sometimes, the nether world of national security becomes even more clouded, with some nations shifting back and forth from good to evil. Consider Iran and Iraq, for example. In 1953, Iran was considered a threat to U.S. national security. Thus, the CIA, one of the principal components of the U.S. national-security establishment, engaged in its first regime-change operation, one that succeeded in ousting Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, from power and installing the shah of Iran into power.

For the next 25 years, Iran was considered good, notwithstanding the fact that the shah’s regime was totalitarian in nature. In fact, the CIA even helped him and his national-security establishment to oppress the Iranian people. When Iranians finally revolted against the domestic tyranny that the U.S. national-security state had foisted upon them, Iran immediately became an evil regime in the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, notwithstanding the fact that the new regime wasn’t doing anything different than the shah’s regime had done. During the 1980s, Iraq had a brutal totalitarian regime headed by Saddam Hussein. Nonetheless, it was considered a good regime because it was friendly to the U.S. national-security state. In fact, during that time the relationship was so solid that the United States even sent Iraq biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction so that Saddam could use them to attack Iran (which was considered evil).

Later, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. national-security establishment reclassified Iraq as an evil regime. Today, Iraq is headed by a democratically elected regime that exercises the same totalitarian powers that Saddam exercised, but it’s considered to be a good regime because it’s perceived to be on the side of the U.S. national-security state. If it ultimately formally aligns itself with Iran, as many suspect it will, it will find itself back in the ranks of the evil.

How did it all come to this? How did the United States become transformed from a constitutional republic into a national-security state? How did the concept of national security become the guiding star of American life, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment? How did the national-security establishment — the vast, permanent military-industrial complex and the CIA — come to be the foundation of American society?

More important, is a national-security state truly compatible with the principles of a free society? Did Americans delude themselves into thinking that they could retain a free and safe society with a government that wields totalitarian powers? Did Americans sacrifice their freedom, their security, their values, and their consciences on the altar of national security?

Perhaps most important, has the time come to dismantle the national-security state in order to restore a free, prosperous, peaceful, normal, and harmonious society to our land? Is it time to restore a limited-government, constitutional republic, the type of government that was clearly envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

Let’s examine those questions. Let’s start by focusing on Cuba.

This is Chapter 1 of FFF’s newest ebook, The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger. Purchase the book for $1 here.

Share This Article

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email

10 13 11 flagbar.