By Larry Becraft esq. who’s name had to be hunted on the net!
Only a lawyer would write an article and not include the author’s name.
He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time,
till at length it becomes habitual;
he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him.
This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 19, 1785
Logic is simple, although seldom used. The elements of logic are a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. Here is an example:
Major premise: All dogs have four legs.
Minor premise: Ruff is a dog.
Conclusion: Therefore, Ruff has four legs.
But, if either the major or minor premise is false, so is the conclusion. For example, this is illogical as well as false:
Major premise: All dogs are blue in color (false).
Minor premise: Ruff is a dog.
Conclusion: Therefore, Ruff is blue in color (false).
Major premise: Man-made vehicles with two wings and jet engines are capable of flight.
Minor premise: The Egyptian pyramids have jets and two wings (false).
Conclusion: Therefore, the pyramids are capable of flight (false).
In this movement against powerful and abusive government, there are a number of “gurus” promoting illogical and erroneous arguments. For example, too often gurus will misquote cases or even completely fabricate quotes from them. Years ago, a man named Victor Varjabedian wrote a book entitled “Cracking the Code.” Therein, he asserted that the case of “Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54” stated as follows:
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary – having neither actuality nor substance – is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. therefor can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
This language appears nowhere in this case, and the case itself had absolutely no relationship to the fake quote. But, lies are common.
Not only do these gurus create illogical and false arguments, they also invent false solutions. For example, Roger Elvick and others invented the “redemption process”, shortly summarized as follows: (a) the US Treasury has an account for every American with oodles of money in it as dictated by the 1935 Social Security Act; (b) to obtain possession of the funds in these accounts, one “re-captures” his alter-ego “name in CAPS” using UCC procedures; (c) once recaptured, one may write “hot checks” drawn on these non-existent accounts at the US Treasury, which can be spent on buying fancy cars, houses, trips to the Bahamas, etc. Of course, the gurus slowed promotion of this false solution after approximately 200 people were indicted for following their bad advice.
Glenn Unger, using the fake name of “Dr. Sam Kennedy”, promoted filing “Form 1099-OID tax returns”, the substance of which is not addressed here. He also promoted “The Restore America Plan (‘TRAP’)”, which proved to be a TRAP for him. Tim Turner promoted filing admiralty liens against opponents as well as filing Form 1099-OID tax returns. Both of these gurus enjoyed the limelight for a while, but are now in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons serving sentences of more than 12 years.
One currently popular argument that is really a “false cause” is posted on the Scanned Retina website (authored by “Fake Judge Anna”). Several of her false contentions posted at the above link appear below in red, along with evidence of falsity:
Claim No. 1: March 27, 1861, the actual elected Congress ceases to function.
The implication of this contention is that the constitutional Congress permanently ended on this date, replaced by a private corporation. But, the historical facts are far different.
Legislatures are created by constitutions that typically establish the terms of the various legislatures. When the term of a specific legislature ends, custom dictates that the last act of that legislative body is to adjourn “sine die.” This signifies the end of that particular legislature, with the next legislature to be convened at the time set forth in the Constitution or existing law.
Several popular but utterly baseless arguments, including this one, make similar claims. Promoters of these arguments attempt to make the reader believe something sinister happened in March, 1861, and Lincoln thereafter created “USA, Inc.,” in the place of the constitutional Congress or federal government. This is false, but those who know little or no history, or refuse to even learn, will be deceived by these arguments.
The 36th Congress adjourned on March 3, 1861 because, at least for the House of Representatives, the terms of all House members had expired. President Buchanan, sensing the newly elected Lincoln might need help regarding events of that time, in February of that year called a special session of the Senate for March 4, 1861, inauguration day. On this day, the Senate assembled, then recessed to attend Lincoln’s inauguration, after which it reconvened.
At the time all of this happened, 7 states had already seceded from the Union. Three senators from the seceded states attended – 1 from South Carolina and 2 from Texas. Seven other senators from states still in the Union did not attend, including both senators from Kansas, the most recently admitted state.
There were 34 states then in the Union, for a total of 68 senators, and a quorum required 35 senators (including the seceded states in the calculation). Subtracting 14 senators from the seceding states and 7 others who didn’t attend, but adding 3 others, a total of 50 senators attended the first day of the session, which was clearly a quorum.
But, only the Senate was in session and it could do nothing other than adopt resolutions and exercise other unique powers, like consent to appointments and ratify treaties.
Nobody walked out. Over the course of the four weeks that the Senate was in session, some members went home because they had other business needing attention. Congress was then a part-time legislature and typically only met for three months a year, from December through February.
By March 27, the Senate was still waiting for Lincoln to communicate some message or directive to it. One senator from Oregon joked that he was going to go home and that the Sergeant-at-Arms could come and get him if he wished, but it would be a pointless exercise.
On March 27, the senators were trying to adjourn for the day. Because senators were leaving the chamber and returning on their own whim, the vote to adjourn lacked a quorum. There was interest in adjourning to the next day. The discussion concerned whether to convene at 11:00 AM or 1:00 PM. A standing rule set on the first day (March 4) of the session was to convene at 1:00 PM each day, so changing to 11:00 AM was out of order without a quorum. Some argued that they could adjourn without a quorum, if they set no time to reconvene – in other words, sine die. One senator pointed out that it was silly to require a quorum to adjourn because they could be sitting there for months waiting for a quorum to appear. In the end, they took a recess until the next day, a fine point of procedure. At the end of March 28, they adjourned the special session.
The entire sine die argument is a blatant lie because the Constitution sets the day on which the Congress shall convene and gives the President and the chamber leaders the power to call them into session at other times.
After the 36th Congress adjourned, the 37th Congress, 1st Session, started on July 4, 1861.
That Congress was passing laws soon after first meeting. The laws enacted by the 36th Congress, and the 37th Congress, 1st Session, are published in 12 Stat. Simply looking at the table of contents for this volume reveals that both Congresses were in session and enacting laws. The contention that Congress died in 1861 is simply more mythology emanating from folks with sinister motives.
Claim 2. Lincoln creates a corporation doing business as “The United States of America” and uses what is left of the Congress as a Board of Directors. March 27, 1861, the actual elected Congress ceases to function.
The above shows that the 36th Congress terminated as a matter of law, and the 37th Congress convened thereafter, again pursuant to constitutional provisions. The implication that Congress “died” as a constitutional institution because one Congress ended is utterly false as every Congress constitutionally does end, and another one convenes thereafter. And the claim that Lincoln created a corporation named “The United States of America” is just simply a fabrication unsupported by any provable fact. In other words, this contention is another blatant lie.
Where is the proof that Lincoln created some corporation?
Claim 3. This “Corporate Congress” changes the meaning of the word “person” to mean “corporation” for their own private in-house corporate purposes. (37th Congress, Second Session, Chapter 49, Section 68).
The old U.S. Statutes at Large had a method of citation during the War of Northern Aggression that is different from today. While today we have sequentially numbered “Public Law numbers”, back then “chapter numbers” were used instead. As each law was enacted, it was simply given a “chapter” number, sequentially numbered. Thus, the citation for the above law, 37th Congress, Second Session, chapter 49, is easy to find and it is 12 Stat. 374.
This law was titled “An act to secure to the Officers and Men actually employed in the Western Department or Department of Missouri their Pay, Bounty, and Pension.” It is less than a single page, has only 3 sections, and has no section 68 defining the word “person.” This claim is just a blatant lie.
Claim 4. The Corporate Congress changes the meaning of more words— according to them, the meaning of the words “state”, “State” and “United States” all magically mean “the territories and the District of Columbia” (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864.)
At the start of the War of Northern Aggression, there were 34 States in this American Union, but during the war, West Virginia was carved from Virginia, making the total number of States be 35. But, there were a number of territories, all subject to direct legislative authority of Congress. Further, since territories are legally outside the United States, the Constitution does not really apply in them, at least the Constitution’s restrictions regarding the imposition of direct and indirect taxes.
The act referenced above, 13 Stat. 223, ch. 173, was titled “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government, to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes”. It imposed a variety of taxes: alcoholic beverages, licenses, articles, auctions and brokers, livestock, transportation, banks, income, estates, and others. It also imposed some stamp taxes.
This revenue act’s first page was 13 Stat. 223. Section 182, at the very end of this 83 page act, provided a statutory definition of the word “state”; see 13 Stat. 306. The word “state” appeared a number of times in this act, both as a verb and a noun. To assist in performing word searches, a searchable version of this act is posted here.
Since this act was to be administered inside the “states,” a number of its provisions referenced “states.” For example, section 78 provided as follows:
“SEC. 78. And be it further enacted, That no license hereinbefore provided for shall, if granted, be held, or construed to exempt any person carrying on the trade, business, or profession specified in said license from any penalty or punishment provided by the laws of any state for carrying on such trade, business, or profession, within such state, or in any manner to authorize the commencement or continuance of such trade, business, or profession, contrary to the laws of such state, or in places prohibited by municipal law; nor shall any such license be held or construed to prevent or prohibit any state from placing a duty or tax for state or other purposes on any trade, business, or profession, for which a license is required by this act; nor shall any person carrying on any trade, business, or profession, for which a license is required by this act, be exempted from procuring such license, or from any penalty or punishment herein provided by, or in consequence of, any state law either authorising or prohibiting such trade, business, or profession.”
But, this act also applied in the territories and Washington, D.C. All that the statutory definition of “state” contained in section 182 accomplished was to include the territories and D.C. in the definition of the word “state.” To claim that this definition affected the status of citizens and made them citizens of the District of Columbia is to practice deceit and trickery. It is surely dishonest.
Claim 5. These “special definitions” adopted by “a” Congress operating a private, for-profit corporation doing business as “The United States of America” then secretly allowed the rats to “presume” that anyone who used the common meaning of these words and admitted to living in a “state” or the “United States” was submitting to be considered and treated as a “citizen” of the District of Columbia, instead. In their secretively altered lexicon, “United States Citizen = District of Columbia Citizen”.
This contention is lunacy. This definition only described the areas where that tax act applied, and had nothing to do with citizens or their status. But lies like this certainly deceive the gullible and ill-informed.
Claim 6. And as anyone reading The Constitution can see, this meant submitting to the rule of “Congress” which was given plenary control of the District of Columbia. Via the use of semantic deceit a small group of venal criminals “redefined” our Republic as a plenary oligarchy run by none other than themselves. They also endeavored to redefine all the freeborn Americans as slaves belonging to the District of Columbia. Never mind that the “Congress” engaging in this fraud and merely pretending to be the lawfully elected Congress had absolutely no public office and no delegated authority.
Again, this assertion is lunacy. Will those promoting this argument prove it?
Claim 7. What happened with all this fraud by a hundred years later? The 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 claim contains an alleged quote from the Congressional Record of June 13, 1967, and those specific pages are available here. This quote appears nowhere on these or any other pages of the Congressional Record. This claim is just a blatant fabrication.
The Fake Judge also has posted another fabricated historical timeline on the Scanned Retina website here. Below is an analysis of several of her contentions, set forth in red.
Claim 4. 1783: The Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Versailles cements this arrangement splitting the land and sea jurisdictions between the States and the Federal Union and places King George III as Trustee of American interests on the “High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways” — which means he kept control of American international commerce. The new “Union” entity operating in the international Jurisdiction of the sea was always controlled by the British and it has always been the British Monarch’s responsibility as International Trustee to manage it and guarantee its proper operation. It has instead run amok for 150 years.
The Treaty of Peace (or Paris as she states), 8 Stat. 80, is entirely different from what is falsely claimed by the “judge.” In the treaty, the English King expressly relinquished ALL claims he had regarding the new American States, and both English and American courts have expressly so held. The idea that as a result of this treaty the King was some sort of trustee for American rivers or seas and controlled them is unmitigated hogwash!! The same conclusion applies to the erroneous contention that the New Union operated only on the seas.
Why did she mention the Treaty of Versailles?
Claim 5. 1787: The Supreme Perfected Republican Declaration of the United Colonies creates the National Trust owed the Continental United States.
History fails to reveal any document named the “Supreme Perfected Republican Declaration of the United Colonies.” A trust is a simple legal entity, having 3 elements: (1) the property in the trust (the “res”); (2) a trustee who holds legal title to the property for the benefit of the “beneficiary”; and (3) the beneficiary who holds the beneficial title. A trust can only be created in 2 different ways: (a) in writing, or (b) orally, which would depend on the testimony of witnesses to prove its existence.
The problem that confronts the “fake judge” regarding this trust theory is that she has no witnesses or document in writing. Thus, the idea that some trusts were created prior to or in 1787 as alleged is pure fabrication.
Claim 6. 1789: Two years later, “The Constitution for the united States of America” splits off the sea jurisdiction and creates the new Federal United States. A year later (1790) the Federal United States forms a commercial company doing business as the United States (Commercial Company) to provide the nineteen enumerated services agreed to by the subscribing States.
Where precisely in the U.S. Constitution is there anything that concerns a split of the “sea jurisdiction”? Furthermore, it is contended that the “Commercial Company” agreed to provide “enumerated services” to the “subscribing States”, and clearly to do so would involve work for many years, and certainly more than one.
At common law, every obligation requiring the performance of services for more than a year was required to be evidenced by a writing subscribed by the “party to be charged,” and this common law rule is today memorialized by duly enacted “statutes of frauds” in every state of this Union. For example, the general Alaska statute of frauds is found at Alaska Statutes § 09.25.010, and Alabama’s is in Alabama Code § 8-9-2. These laws provide that every “agreement which, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” must be memorialized by some written document, signed by the party to be charged. There is no written agreement that the fake judge can produce regarding this alleged services contract. This claim, too, is pure fabrication.
Claim 7. 1812-1814: The British try to horn in again and are beaten back. This skirmish results in the Treaty of Ghent, where the British interests in American shipping and commerce are reaffirmed and lasting peace is promised in return.
The Treaty of Ghent, 8 Stat. 218, ended the War of 1812, and this treaty is still in force. See Treaties in Force. Nothing in this treaty provides that the Brits have any interest in American shipping or commerce. This contention is just another lie.
Claim 8. 1845: The British Monarch and Pope secretly agree to undermine the American System of government via the Treaty of Verona. The British Monarch breaches the Treaty of Ghent and both the Pope and the King secretly breach their trust as International Trustees. They set out on a covert action and issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal to the members of the Bar Associations, allowing them to act as Foreign Agents on American soil and as privateers free to plunder American commerce.
The Treaty of Verona expressly dealt only with Europe, and not America. If this treaty was in fact genuine and not the fabrication of some European newspaper, it sought to protect the then existing monarchies in Europe, who were fearful of Napoleon. But, here in America, the Monroe Doctrine was in effect. This treaty obviously failed to achieve its purpose because there have not been monarchies in the major European countries for a long time.
In 1845, there were no bar associations in America, the first being formed 23 years later. As noted here, “The Galveston Bar Association was organized in 1868; the ‘Association of the Bar of the City of New York’ in 1870; and the Bar Association of St. Louis in 1874. In 1874 (May 14) was also formed the Iowa State Bar Association, followed in 1875 (June 2) by the Connecticut State Bar Association.” The American Bar Association was formed in 1878, and most American lawyers today are not members of that voluntary membership association. The Alabama State Bar was created by the Alabama legislature in 1923. Bar Associations are historically relatively new. How did the British Monarch grants “letters of Marque and Reprisal” to organizations that did not exist?
Claim 9. 1860: Thanks to the efforts of the Bar Associations a member of the Bar, Abraham Lincoln, is elected to serve as President. Note that he is ineligible serve as President of the united States of America, by the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the actual Constitution— but is eligible to serve as President of the United States (Commercial Company). This is the same situation we have with Barack Obama who is ineligible to serve as President of the United States of America, but is able to serve as President of the United States (Incorporated).
There were no bar associations in America prior to the War of Northern Aggression. See here and below for information regarding the alleged missing 13th Amendment. Crackpots who knowingly and willfully fabricate legal arguments know that their fraud will be detected by lawyers.
Claim 10. 1861: The Civil War begins. Congress adjourns for lack of quorum and without a date to reconvene. Lincoln organizes a Delaware Corporation and the remaining members of Congress begin functioning as a Board of Directors.
As show above, the “Congress adjourned sine die” is a completely false contention. If Lincoln formed a Delaware corporation, surely the Delaware Secretary of State would have some records regarding this, but there are no such records.
Claim 11. 1862: The “Corporate Congress”—a body of men no different than the Board of Directors of IBM, change the meaning of a single word —only and explicitly for use within their corporation. That word is “person”. From then on the word “person” is deemed to mean “corporation” for federal government purposes. (37th “Congress”– Second Session, Chapter 49, Section 68.)
This false argument has been addressed above.
Claim 12. 1863: Lincoln signs the Lieber Code as Commander in Chief and puts the Union Army, the Grand Army of the Republic, in charge of the nation’s future and money supply. A day later, he bankrupts the original United States (Commercial Company).
The Lieber Code was never law because Congress never adopted it, and it applied solely to the armies of the North. By its own terms, it applied only during war. In Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court held that martial law could only apply in the area of actual combat where two armies were fighting; if there are no “armies in the field” and the courts are open, martial law does not have any effect.
The Grand Army of the Republic did not exist in 1863, and it was created as a fraternal association in 1866.
Claim 13. 1865: Lee’s Army surrenders to Grant and a general armistice is declared. The Southern States are in ruins and under military occupation by the Union. The original Northern States are bankrupt. Foreign banks are in control of the new “United States of America, Inc.” and the Union Army reigns supreme. Over the next two years President Andrew Johnson will three times publicly declare peace on the land jurisdiction of the Continental United States, but peace is never declared in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea controlled by the Federal United States under the trusteeship of the British Monarch.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has posted all of the old Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, and they are easy to download. Lots of gurus make claims regarding the financial condition of the federal government, but never buttress their claims with any proof. Why don’t they examine the Annual Reports of the Treasury Secretary?
Claim 14. 1868: The Corporate Congress writes itself a new Corporate Constitution, called “the Constitution of the United States of America” and palms off this look-alike, sound-alike private corporate document “as if” it were the actual Constitution. This is fraud on many levels. The Constitution of the United States of America purposefully sought to confuse and delude people into thinking it was the actual Equity Contract obligating the States to receive services and subrogate their international jurisdiction to the federal government.
This is pure fabrication, fodder for the gullible.
Claim 15. 1871: The Corporate Congress begins to set up shop for itself by creating a separate government for the District of Columbia. The initial effort fails but seven years later the Washington DC Municipality is created as an independent international city state run as a plenary oligarchy by the members of “Congress”. Also in 1871, the Corporate Congress claimed to own all United States corporations— 41st “Congress”– Third Session, Chapters 62, 63, 64, and 65.
This is that old, utterly baseless “Act of 1871″ argument, addressed here. The fake judge also claims that 4 laws enacted by the 41st Congress, chaps. 62, 63, 64 and 65, asserted ownership of all corporations. Those laws may be read here: ch. 62: 16 Stat. 419 (“The Act of 1871”); ch. 63: 16 Stat. 429; ch. 64: 16 Stat. 429; ch. 65: 16 Stat. 429. It appears that she just copied the top of page 429 when she wanted to reference some “legal” authority for her wild and baseless contentions.
Claim 16. 1874-1885: All the actual States on the land are reorganized and at the same time completely new “Federal States” are created and new “State Constitutions” are written for them. The original States on the land are renamed in this process. The original State of Ohio operating the land jurisdiction became the Ohio State, while the usurping “Federal State”— merely a corporate franchise of the United States of America, Inc. operating in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea—took over the name “State of Ohio”.
The contention that “Federal States” were created is unmitigated hogwash. She uses as an example the State of Ohio, but the current constitution for Ohio was adopted in 1851. A website with a list of all of the State Constitutions (and links to relevant authority) is posted here on Wikipedia.
Claim 17. 1900-1904: Still lusting after more power for itself, the Corporate Congress set up a second shop for itself and obtained permission to do it from the Supreme Court in a series of cases known as The Insular Tariff Cases. As with setting up the Washington DC Municipality as a foreign city-state on our shores and running it as their own little oligarchy, the “Congress” now took the “federal territories and possessions” and made a new “union” of “American states”— Puerto Rico, Guam, et alia—and began calling it “the United States of America (Minor)”. They just forgot to add the (Minor) part of the name from then on, and let people assume that all the repugnant laws they passed governing this “Constitutional Democracy” also applied to the Continental United States.
When the Constitution was adopted, several States like Virginia claimed large tracts of land extending to the Mississippi River. These States transferred their “western lands” to the federal government, from which territories were created. Georgia transferred her claims to her western lands, resulting in the creation of the Mississippi territory, from which the territories of Alabama and Mississippi were created. Mississippi was admitted into the Union as a State in 1817 and Alabama was admitted into the Union as a State in 1819.
America’s “manifest destiny” was achieved via the Louisiana Purchase and the further conquest of the American West, the details of which are omitted here. During this time, Congress enacted laws for the government of the territories that were codified in Title 22 of the 1873 Revised Statutes. Today, those laws that remain regarding the “territory of the United States” are codified in Title 48, U.S. Code.
The territorial laws are clear regarding where they applied.
Claim 18. 1912-1913: A private association of European and American banks calling themselves “The Federal Reserve” bought the governmental services corporation known as “The United States of America, Inc.” and its “State” franchises as a business venture, and began operating such familiar agencies as The United States Department of Agriculture and The United States Department of Transportation as private, for-profit businesses—without telling anyone. They exercised the “government powers” they didn’t really possess in a vast fraud scheme in collusion with members of “Congress” to institute a fiat monetary system and misused their position of trust to put competitors out of business, set up monopolies, rig commodity markets, and commit other acts of blatant self-interested criminality and fraud.
The federal Department of Agriculture was created by a specific act of Congress on May 15, 1862, 12 Stat. 387. The Department of Transportation was established by an act of Congress on October 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 931. Apparently, those bankers were defrauded when they “bought” an agency that was not created until some 54 years later. Can we please view and read the written bills of sale for these agencies?
The difference between a citizen and an alien is legally significant, and having a government document proving that one is a “natural born citizen”, a criteria for becoming Prez of the US of A, is thus beneficial for many reasons. This is one of the reasons that states collect birth certificates as public records. If needed for any reason, including legal proceedings, one may obtain a certified copy of that public record from the public official having possession of that “public record.”
Contrary to popular mythology, birth certificates or certificates of live birth have no value as “commercial instruments” or securities, and no market exists where they are bought and sold, by big international banks or otherwise. Nonetheless, con-artists exist who promote to the weak-minded this flaky idea, such as the thief who operates this website. Why would anyone want to sell his birth certificate, which has value only to identity thieves?
Fake Judge Anna is a purveyor of this legal trash. In a recent email from her, she claimed that she was personally present when Prez Jimmy Carter delivered all American birth certificates to the possession and custody of the United Nations. This is a palpable lie from this chronic liar: the UN does not provide certified copies of birth certificates, and it is state agencies that do so because they possess these public records. Contrary to the lies of the fake judge, the UN does not possess birth certificates or similar “public records.”
Here are some more statements of the fake judge:
Even the Uniform Commercial Code which was developed by the Curia as a just means to resolve the many international disputes and claims arising from the 1930 bankruptcies of the G-5 nations is copyrighted by Unidroit, a subsidiary of the Vatican.
The UCC was not created by the Roman Catholic Church’s Curia. The history of the creation of the UCC is here. It applies only in the States of this American Union. For many years, gurus have used all sorts of wild UCC arguments to deceive many.
The fundamental theory that the fake judge promotes is summarized in her own words as follows:
There are three international Trustees named as caretakers of The United States Trust (1789).
They are the Pope, in His Temporal Office, the British Monarch, and The United States Postmaster (Civil).
This is lunacy.
She claims we are all trusts, represented by “names in CAPS”:
The JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ESTATE is a trust, a legal fiction entity, a corporation.
The old “names in CAPS” argument has been around a long time, but it has no substance.
One of the “judges” in the fake judge’s group was Steve Curry, who apparently is now in jail, having been convicted for fraud in the sale of fake meteorites.
The Vatican, English and Spanish Monarchies
Fake Judge Anna also claims in her comic book that there are three trusts that control the whole world: one under the control of the Pope, another by the English Crown and another by the Spanish monarch. What she omits is any mention of what has been decided by the American and English courts: no country in this world outside the United States of America has any legal authority here. See this treatment regarding the 1213 Concession.
“Everything is Admiralty!!”
For too many years, various gurus have promoted the utterly baseless lie that all or most legal proceedings in any court in this country are really admiralty proceedings. One of the fake judge’s followers wrote:
Anna is quite correct in her analysis of our current situation. An astute observer might question as to how the Federal govt. can enforce the Law of the Sea here on the land. That fete was accomplished by having the U.S. Coast Guard survey the entire continental united States in 1938 [coincides with some important Supreme Court decisions] and designating the top of Pikes Peak as the high water mark. Now they can fictitiously operate Maritime/Admiralty courts on the land although you will never find a judge who will admit to that.
Contrary to this mythology, a proceeding in admiralty must have some relationship to commerce on this high seas or navigable waters, as explained here. If you encounter an admiralty advocate, consider him as suffering from delusions.
The Geneva Conventions
In another article, she claims:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff stand notified that they are obligated under the Geneva Convention Protocols of 1949 as well as The Constitution for the united States of America to come to the aid and assistance of the civilian populace of the Continental United States and to protect the civilian population and its assets at all costs and to prosecute those who have willingly violated Volume II, Article 3, of the Geneva Convention Protocols seeking to change the birthright citizenship and nationality of American State Citizens of the Continental United States by fraud, force, and coercion.
In another article, she further claims:
At the Geneva Conventions of 1930 the G5 nations all declared bankruptcy by international treaty. The American representative at the Convention that year was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Three years later, having been elected President of the United States of America, Incorporated, he declared domestic bankruptcy as well.
The Geneva Convention of 1949 relates exclusively to matters of war. The only treaty that could possibly match the referenced Convention of 1930 is the Convention Providing a Uniform Law For Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
Trading With the Enemy Act
During war, enemies often enact laws to seize the assets of their opponent that are within their reach inside their jurisdictions. When WWI started and the US entered that war, Congress enacted the Trading With the Enemy Act (“TWE”) to do just that. However, the act itself expressly excluded citizens from being defined as either the “enemy” or an “ally of an enemy.” In March, 1933, TWE was amended to allow asset seizures during emergencies, but the express definitions in that act did not change the definitions of “enemy” or an “ally of an enemy” to include citizens. This remains the condition of TWE today and citizens are not defined as an “enemy” or an “ally of an enemy.”
A popular argument circulates otherwise, and it asserts that citizens were made “enemies” by the amendment in 1933. At this link, there is a PDF image of the definitions of “enemy” and an “ally of an enemy” as contained in the original TWE, 40 Stat. 411. This PDF also contains the whole 1933 act, 48 Stat. 1, which demonstrates that the original definitions of “enemy” and “ally of an enemy” were not changed via that amendment. Finally, the last 2 pages show that the original definitions in the TWE of 1917 remain the same today. This shows that the statutory definitions of “enemy” and “ally of enemy” have always excluded citizens. Websites like USA the Republic err when they promote strings of false facts.
In another article, she claims:
The United States defined as “…the District of Columbia et alia” went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt in Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and finally, as consolidated in Executive Order 6260.
A bankruptcy is a simple matter to understand. The debtor’s assets are collected by a duly appointed trustee and sold in the open market. The proceeds from the sale of assets are used to pay all creditors. How people can claim that the events in 1933 are really some bankruptcy is difficult to understand. They claim the United States was bankrupt. But assets of the United States were not seized, it was gold that was the subject of seizures. Can somebody please explain how the seizure of property (gold) from others and the delivery of that gold to the possession of the United States evidences some mysterious bankruptcy?
The Missing 13th Amendment
This argument is promoted by lots of gurus and is addressed more fully here. A major flaw regarding this argument is that the only nobles are “dukes, marqises, earls, viscounts and barons“. An excellent article regarding this issue is posted here; this is a large file and may take a few minutes to download. Another great analysis of this baseless argument is posted on Jol Silversmith’s website.
In Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 342, 393 (Ohio 1856), that court defined a national government and contrasted it with a federal government: “A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the ‘social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.” Black’s Law Dictionary quotes this case in its definition of national government. The Government of the United States is a federal government.
But while many may understand this difference between national and federal government, even fewer understand, in reference to human beings, who is a “national” of the United States. This short memo constitutes an introduction to this topic.
In the late 1800s, the United States was beginning to assert power over islands not contiguous to this country. Then, Hawaii was conquered and made a territory. With time, the same thing happened with the Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Swain’s Island, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and similar places. Congress began referring to citizens of those islands as persons owing a duty of allegiance to the United States or obedience to its laws; see 28 Stat. 64, 32 Stat. 694.
Eventually in the first few decades of the 20th century, a name for these people was developed: a national. Examples of this name for these persons can be easily seen from a variety of pages appearing in the U.S. Statutes at Large:
Inherently, “national” means a citizen of the insular possessions. One definition of this word appears in 24 C.F.R. § 5.504, which states: “National means a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, for example, as a result of birth in a United States territory or possession.” In § 871-24.60 (96) of the Iowa Administrative Code, “A national is defined as a person who lives in mandates or trust territories administered by the United States and owes permanent allegiance to the United States. An alien is a person owing allegiance to another country or government.” In Washington Administrative Code § 388-424-0001, this word is defined as “a person who owes permanent allegiance to the U.S. and may enter and work in the U.S. without restriction. The following are the only persons classified as U.S. nationals: (1) Persons born in American Samoa or Swain’s Island after December 24, 1952; and (2) Residents of the Northern Mariana Islands who did not elect to become U.S. citizens.”
Often, Congress uses in legislation the phrase “citizen or national of the United States”. When this word appears in this context without definition, it means a citizen of the insular possessions. But just as often when a federal law encompasses a citizen or national, that act may provide a specific definition. Such act may define a U.S. Person, or Citizen, as being a “citizen or national”, and in this event, the defined word encompasses a citizen or national.
Seriously folks, would you expect anything less from a 2-bit lawyer? Can anyone reading this justify a low down lawyer having any more credibility than Anna? Can you not just compare the actions of our so called government to the accusations made clear by Anna? If you cannot decide who is telling the truth based on non stop criminality we have been subjected to then go back to your TV and watch game shows, foot-ball, or dancing with the sluts!