Attention America: Consider ensuring this message reaches all of your respective public servants whether acting as impostors or de jure!

On Mar 14, 2016, at 2:14 PM, ed johnston <edjohnston2003@yahoo.com> wrote:

Lisa Foster, director of the Office for Access to Justice (OAJ), , Director webmaster@usdoj.gov

DoJ Warns Judges: You Better Stop Jailing People For Not Paying Fines https://occupycorporatism.com/doj-warns-judges-better-stop-jailing-people-not-paying-fines/

                       Please Line number for me email back one copy PDF for me thank you possible autograph

            Affidavit inserting are 1778 Ratified Constitution Lawful bloodline American and Legal Citizens right

   Investigation of misuse of Public Funding and taxes used to Kidnapping and holding man hostages for funding

                            Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved U<l:CI-306-308- I 207of State Sovereignty Notice:

                                                      We the People of the forty eight union now Fifty

                                United States of America Republic Elected and public servant’s oversights

                                        Requesting Criminal Investigation misuse of public Funding AKA

                                                 birth certificate bond us on new york stock exchange

               All types of Taxes collected from Lawfully American Publicly Owned as we are Educated on in public schools

                                              Date March Fourth twenty thousand and sixteenth the year

                                                                    edward- malone=johnston

                                                                           Oregon territory

                                         DMM602@1.3(e)2 Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP CODE) not required.

                     Whereas : Please Autograph this Long instrument and Email , Call and Fax them on

                                  Living Soul of a Lawful Bloodline Native American wesley glenn dick

The National Archives and Records Administration

8601 Adelphi Road

College Park, MD 20740-6001

orderstatus@nara.gov

1-866-272-6272

General NARA fax:   301-837-0483

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

919 US HWY 395 S

Gardnerville, NV 89410

(775) 265-8600

Reno Gazette-Journal Contact Form

Contact Us

Main Contact Numbers

Main contact: 775-788-6397

Customer Service Department: 800-970-7366

Press/Media Inquiries

Contact (203) 256-3390 or email press@americantowns.com

AmericanTowns.com

43 Ruane Street

Fairfield, CT 06824

(203) 256-3390

University of Nevada, Reno     |     

1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno     |   

(775) 784-1110 communications@unr.edu

Indian Country Today Media Network

ICTMN

Attn: Business Affairs

5218 Patrick Road

Verona, NY 13478

customerservice@ictmn.com or call us at (212) 600-2086

Editorial

editor@ictmn.com

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/contact

Indian Law Online Master Degree (MJIL)

Shonday Harmon

MJ Program Director – Online Legal Education

Email: shonday-harmon@utulsa.edu

kate@utulsa.edu

Phone: (918) 631-3991

Nevada Indian Commission

5500 Snyder Avenue, Building #3,

Carson City, NV 89701 | 775-687-8333

Indian Territory Historical territory, United States

Address: Britannica Customer Support

331 North La Salle Street

Chicago, IL 60654-2682

Hours: Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-4:30 PM, CST

Phone: 800.323.1229 Fax: 312.294.2104

contact@eb.com

    Native American Rights Fund of Boulder, CO

1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302-6296

(303) 447-8760 (303) 443-7776 fax

webmaster@narf.org

   Boulder CO (main) — 303-447-8760

Anchorage AK — 907-276-0680

Washington DC — 202-785-4166

         Affidavit inserting are 1778 Ratified Constitution Lawful bloodline American and Legal Citizens right

   Investigation of misuse of Public Funding and taxes used to Kidnapping and holding man hostages for funding

CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE: THE NATIVE AMERICAN STRUGGLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

IN THE AMERICAN WEST,1830-1965 NEVADA LAW JOURNAL

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=nlj

Whereas : Native American wesley glenn dick Kidnap and held for Ransom

Nevada “Kidnapping” Laws (NRS 200.310) First degree kidnapping

First degree kidnapping occurs when someone “willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person” with brings the crime within the ambit of federal … Kidnapping for ransom is a common occurrence in … held permanently or for ransom).

   hold the person for ransom,

   for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person,

   for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon the person,

   to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person.

it is also first degree kidnapping in Nevada when a person “leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine the minor” from his/her guardians or with the intent to perpetrate upon the minor any unlawful act.

A person cannot be convicted of both the Nevada crime of robbery as well as first-degree kidnapping in a case if the movement of the victim was:

   incidental to the robbery, and did not increase the risk of harm to the victim.

For example, temporarily bringing a store clerk from the cash register to the backroom so you can rob the store probably would not qualify as kidnapping. Same for AKA Birth Certificate for ones Funding ones unjustified Salaries

Federal Kidnapping Law

Unlike Nevada law, federal kidnapping law under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 does not divide kidnapping into degrees. However both Nevada and federal courts levy very harsh punishments for kidanpping, including a possible life sentence. Read more about federal kidnapping law in Nevada in our article on federal kidnapping law in Nevada.

Use of a deadly weapon (NRS 193.165)

A Clark County judge may impose an additional penalty of 1 – 20 years in prison for using a deadly weapon or firearm in the commission of a Las Vegas crime of kidnapping, but the extra time may not exceed the underlying sentence. And if someone is convicted of first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon, the judge may not grant probation.

1. The Federal District Court today is a hybrid that was never intended to be.

2. Every Federal District Judge takes his oath to uphold the Constitution —– 5 USC 3331. (Bear in mind that you cannot use CFR, USC, or any other of their private statutes in their courts, with the single exception of the United States Statutes at Large, which are public. The most you can do is remind them of their oath and accept it.)

3. March 9, 1933 martial law was imposed by Proclamation 2040 on both the federal and state government franchises organized as the United States of America, Inc. and its “states” doing business as the “State of California”, etc. The “Trading With the Enemy Act” of October 6, 1917 (50 USC App. 5(b) was amended by the “Emergency Banking Relief Act” of March 9, 1933 (12USC95a) —-2040 continued Emergency Proclamation 2039.

4. On April 25, 1938, the US Supreme Court demolished federal general common law civilian due process and the military common law jurisdiction was imposed.

5. In September 1938, new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced “as authorized by Section 17 of the Trading With the Enemy Act”. Four years later, in 1942, new Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure followed.

6. After that, there has been no distrinction between suits at law and suits in equity— they are constitutionally created courts, but sitting in a foreign, statutory, emergency war powers military jurisdiction. Civilian “U.S. citizens” are now treated as “enemy combatants” subject to military due process of law— i.e., international martial common law.

7. From July 28, 1868 to March 9, 1933, all Americans in the organic states were Private American Citizens without any implied or express contract with the Federal corporations or the Federal “State” franchises. They were protected by Section 1 of the corporate Constitution’s 14th Amendment. 1884 Fifth Generation is Lawful Bloodline American are Elders Americans saw how to save are lands from foreign invasion wrote this to protect US from Starvation and war

8. FDR’s Proclamation 2039 made all U.S. citizens “enemies” and their property was deemed “enemy property”— which was seized via exercise of titles held under color of law by the Alien Property Custodian, now the Secretary of the Treasury;

9. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved — after the fact — Roosevelt’s actions back to March 4, 1933, the day of his inauguration— and approved both his Proclamation 2039 and 2040;

10. Every Private American National Citizen was “deemed” to be Registered as a “U.S. citizen” — a foreign situs trust named after them and deemed a citizen under federal “diversity of citizenship”—- via a Certificate of Live Birth.   The foreign situs trust created by this “registration” rather than “recording yielded an artificial “person” which was operated under a name in Upper and Lower Case identical to the given name people were used to using and this “person” was deemed “registered property” of the bankrupt federal corporation.   The living Americans were also “deemed” voluntary sureties and voluntary trustees for the resulting corporate persona: James Albert Doe. After 7 years of this, when clueless Americans didn’t come forward and object and reclaim their status by Expatriation, it was “presumed” that the owner/trustee was “lost at sea” and a second constructive trust was created—-a Cestui Que Vie Trust operated as: JAMES ALBERT DOE, for example. Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

http://www.fara.gov/ The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a disclosure statute codes home rule and administration rules and that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in fifty Staest have to register, Not Lawful Bloodline 1884 America …

11. This reduced the status of the Private American National Citizen to that of a “U.S. citizen”—- a corporation created under federal corporation auspices as a franchise.

12. This PERSON named after you is by definition an “enemy combatant” subject to international military jurisdiction.

13. AS a result of all this GARBAGE and FRAUD, every court procedure both civil and criminal, involves two jurisdictional trusts—- one express and inactive and constitutional, one implied and active and unconstitutional.

14. The express trust is the Constitution for the United States of America. Under this trust, the plaintiff is the trustee and the defendant is the beneficiary (presumed innocent).

15. Thanks to the rupture caused by FDR, the government has foisted its responsibility to be trustee off on the victims of this fraud— the people.

16. The implied trust is the court case itself, conducted within the military jurisdiction of the “civilian” court.

17. This implied trust arises from the “hybrid” nature of the Defendant— a man presumed to be acting as a thing– a corporation and “enemy combatant”—-which results in the Defendant being “deemed” an “enemy combatant” and “presumed guilty”.

18. In a criminal prosecution in a federal court (and all courts are federal— either district or Federal “state” courts— all operated by the United States District Court) the plaintiff comes in the name of the sovereign government—-NOT the sovereign people. The indictment enabling the government to prosecute the victim is a True Bill— see the legal definition of a True Bill and a Bill of Attainder— and then see the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

19. The plaintiff is now the beneficiary and the defendant is now the trustee— this has been accomplished via two contracts—- the first one for the Private American National Citizen and the other for the government.

20. The first implied contract binding the Private American National Citizen is the registered “Certificate of Live Birth” coupled with the seized of all property associated with that NAME;

21. The second contract that replaced our lawful civilian government with martial law was express by the Emergency Banking Relief Act (EBRA) and its amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Whereas :

US Code – Title 42: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42 Apply To Wesley for this kidnapping ,held for ransom

… Title 42: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE. Search by Keyword or Citation; Chapter 1 THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; … Chapter 17 FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Republic vs Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation https://www.youtube.com/watch&#8230;

Whereas : the Sheriff Department is Liable

[PDF]Research Brief – 2014 Ethics – Nevada Legislature http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Publications/ResearchBriefs/EthicsInGovt.pdf

File format:Adobe PDF

Misuse of government resources … by the Nevada Constitution or State or local laws and who … of public funds, and the administration of laws and rules. … State or a political subdivision. Gifts … sole source of supply within the jurisdiction;. (2).

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”

And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial

officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer,

paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into

the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court.

People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is

engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.

1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery

itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. …

It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the

judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court

have been directly corrupted.”

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace

that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by

officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its

impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d

689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a

decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes

final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court”

vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354;

192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies

to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F.

Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into

which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that

fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589

(1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949);

Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the

court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain

circumstances.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective

observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude

or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is

unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162

(1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a

requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486

U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its

appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is

directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”)

(“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from

actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial

process.”).

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any

proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d

1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is

important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has

received justice.”

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the

appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt

v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an

interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of

recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.”

Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for

his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this

language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is

filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow

the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given

another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.

Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has

evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the

orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would

appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause

of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a

tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process

Clause.”).

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has

been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal

Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal

capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this

manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not

a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.

If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-

represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the

law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the

law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other

courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be

disqualified” under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts

without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has

been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that

he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the

interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both

treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Treaty of 1213 Contract Elected and public servants honor thy oath of Servitude for their public service, Lawful Bloodline American

1884 by Born Rights , Rights are not privileges and Immunities clause when Fraud and or rico has been committed .are AKA Birth Records are said Lawful Bloodline American of the date 1884. or owners of the note 1884 as filed. 1903 Citizen until they fifth generation by congress Registered including Elected and public servants, Register Church members aka Voters ,, have to deregulation their Soul From the Crown and Only All Foreigners and foreigners have to pay back it the system. for the Privilege to live in the usa As woman , man and child would have to do in another country get it yet

“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevent…ed from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)] 18 U.S.C. 1001 et al.

Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?

Publius Huldah image By Publius Huldah — Bio and Archives October 31, 2010

1. Let us begin with what is True: Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from the GreatSpirit God.

Our land rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;

The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;

Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent; &

Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

Because the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are. The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights, such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness; to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of self-defense; the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law; the right to speak; the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government; the right to worship God; etc.

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and

We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else’s interpretations WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature” (Federalist No. 33 ( 6th para), A. Hamilton.

So! The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2,clause 1,U.S. Constitution: This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God , the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all! But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called “rights” which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

So, in conclusion:

FREEDOM FROM WAR THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT

IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

The Vatican Owns Your Soul – ALL Birth Certificates are held in Vatican Vaults. … by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the …

8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–432, § 3, struck out “(a)” before “The following” and redesignated pars. (1) to (7) as (a) to (g), respectively.

U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933

FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word “without” to citizens “within” the United States

To cover the debt in 1933 and future debt, the corporate government determined and established the value of the future labor of each incorporated individual in its jurisdiction to be $630,000. A bond of $630,000 is set on each Certificate of Live Birth. The certificates are bundled together into sets and then placed as securities on the open market. These certificates are then purchased by the Federal Reserve and/or foreign bankers. The purchaser is the “holder” of “Title.” This process made each and every person in this jurisdiction a bond servant.

U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified

WHAT IS HJR 192? Can we Discharge our Debts to the…http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/hjr-192-discharg

…/ Jun 7, 2014 … House Joint Resolution 192 was then passed by Congress on June 5, 1933. This law was passed to do away with the gold clause For lawful Bloodline American …

House Joint Resolution 192, 1933 – ****Redemption – tribe.net

tribes.tribe.net/redemption101/thread/07f05122-0090-408b…

House Joint Resolution 192 … this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt. HJR-192 …

.Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED…www.youhavetheright.com/tour3

Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. … passed House Joint Resolution 192 which served … impossible as notes of debt do not pay for anything …

Powers and property interests that the corporate officers of the United States of America, Incorporated or the UNITED STATES, Inc. did not possess prior to the 1933 bankruptcy “emergency” did not magically accrue to them as the result of any emergency economic or otherwise.

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from the Greatspirit God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the “right” to live at other peoples’ expense.

Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of the power to the Federal Government and its limitation of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.” — Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 US 426 (1934).

Our Rights were bestowed by The Greatspirit AKA God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

1 “Natural Law” refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality: The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality, etc. Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man. Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights. And if you listen carefully to “liberals/progressives” as they speak on any topic, you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law. This is because they know no “law” but their own Wills.=The law of the land prevails.

– Talmud, Gittin Topics: justice and law We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

Furthermore We the People Request the insert the public funding right to have all copy’s of all filed CUSIP,, Bonds, Trust(s), Commodities, al et al, shall be made hole, from the beginning, due and payable immediately, in lawful money 12 U.S.C. 411: 48 Statute 337.

The COUNTY/TERRITORY/STATE OF OREGON west coast to OHIO east coast dba CORPORATION shall CEASE AND DESIST any further fraudulent activities against the residents of this state relating to Birth Records. This CORPORATION shall also make hole again to every resident of this state/STATE where they have been deceived by these birth records.

Furthermore the residents of this state demand full access to our CESTA QUE TRUST ACCOUNTS as granted us underneath the 1933 Bankruptcy Act and legislative Acts, al et al, which followed and your office shall file charges against the Congress of the UNITED STATES for breach of fiduciary duty as they were trustees of the Bankruptcy. These charges shall include: Fraud, Civil RICO, Collusion, Treason against the Constitution, Breach of Public Trust for starters.

Whereas:

All Public funded District Attorney our hear say Wittiness That are not EMISABLE in court

An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647).

“Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

EYEWITNESS RULE is that, in absence of eye-witness, or of any obtainable direct evidence as to what deceased did or failed to do by way of pre-caution, at and immediately before injury, pre-sumption is that he, prompted by natural instinct, was in exercise of care for his own safety, obtains. Edwards v. Perley, 223 Iowa 1119, 274 N.W. 910, 915.

“Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).

“Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of a case.” United States v. Lovasco. 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2D 752 (06/09/77).

“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,

Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880.

Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.; Jones Vs General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209,211 (7th Cir. 1996).

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.; Jones Vs General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209,211 (7th Cir. 1996).

Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.

Statutes forbidding administering of oath by attorney’s in cases in which they may be engaged applies to affidavits as well. Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244.

The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, in as much as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate. Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ.

“The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.

“The right to privacy includes an “individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589 (1977).

“Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.

“Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our Mother Earth and the Greatspirit ,God-given or Natural Rights to private property , to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits

of another man’s labors.

Please produce these Financial Documents as well: Birth Certificate Bond, CESTA QUE VIE TRUST, aka, ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST Accounts and all Commodities against this name traded and sold on Wall Street and D&B, owned by the American Bar Association, under C.U.S.I.P. Numbers and those produced by Pseudo Corporate Court/Banks by Case Number and C.U.S.I.P. Numbers thereof. Whereas all Government debt is paid and covered by FDCPA why this fraud scheme other than to steal and pilferage the trust accounts and bonds herein fraudulently created; I would strongly suggest a Grand Jury investigation into these matters. Whether of not the man [DAVID LEE BUESS], et al, is dead I, the living man, have the lawful right to make claim as all these are the Creation by Fraud in the Inducement and without my knowledge and consent thereof. See 1933 House Resolution 192 Lawful American non debt.

In 1779 the United States of America became a Federal Corporation, without Amendment, an act of Treason. This is verified by 28 U.S.C. § 3002 Definitions 15) United States means A) A Federal Corporation. This act of Treason was neither questioned by our former members of Congress nor the President thus are Co-conspirators to this fraud scheme. This fraud enacted to overthrow our Constitutional Government and the Republican form of Government therein established; see “Supreme Law of the Land” defined page 1482 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8TH EDITION. 1. The U.S. Constitution. [Cases: Constitutional law Key: 1.1] 2. Acts of Congress made in accordance with the U.S. Constitution 3.U.S. Treaties. See SUPREMACY CLAUSE. The children, women and the men of these union states, now 50, are not federal/state employees subject to this de facto Federal Corporation, CORPORATE POLICY, thereof and said corporation is operating in fraud within these union States as this Corporation is not lawfully registered with the OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE nor the DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS and neither are they paying their Corporate Taxes thereof. This Federal Corporation has no standing in law thereof against any child, woman and man of these union states. Their Corporate policies must comply to the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America Ratified 1778 thereof. No government entity, employee, officer what-so-ever has any immunity from Prosecution (civil rights) Norton vs. Mcshane 14 L.Ed 2d 274. Also see htttp://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documenhts/1.pdf thereof.

J16th American Juristprudence, Second Edition, Section 177 states it best:

16th American Juris Prudence Section 177

The State did not give the Citizen his rights and thus cannot take them away as it chooses. The State did not establish the settled maxims and procedures by which a citizen must be dealt with, and thus cannot abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative enactments do not constitute the law of the land, but must conform to it.

From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

There are no “emergency powers” granted to Congress. There is no basis for the Trading With the Enemy Act ever being applied against us nor against any “vessel” in commerce named after us. There is no excuse for pretending that all the Americans magically “volunteered” to be considered British Subjects, either.   

On April 14, 1802, the actual United States in Congress Assembled passed United States Statute-at-Large 2, 153, Chapter 28, Subsection 1. The actual government of, for, and by the people clearly defined the necessary process for any American to ever become a United States Citizen—that is, a British Subject merely residing on the land of the United States— a process requiring multiple notices and conscious acts by consenting adults confirmed by public officials and on the public record over a period of two years — not an undisclosed “implied” contract foisted off under conditions of deceit upon babies in their cradles and women recovering from childbirth.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his,or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office.

It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and recognized American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired public servant(s), Children’s Protection Services, Police, Sheriff’s, Martials, CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations, Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law, Corporations,

LLC’s, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers, Unions, et al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the 1776 Constitution for the united States of America, to all matters herein related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans’ right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the Greatspirit ‘GOD’ promised mine and your bloodline of this united States of America for all mankind thereof.

Whereas :

Remember as well merely being born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant/visitor a Citizen of the United States of America subject to the Fourteenth Amendment,[XIV], Amendment … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884).

House Joint Resolution 192, 1933 – ****Redemption – tribe.net tribes.tribe.net/redemption101/thread/07f05122-0090-408b

House Joint Resolution 192 … this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt. HJR-192 …

.Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED…www.youhavetheright.com/tour3

Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. … passed House Joint Resolution 192 which served … impossible as notes of debt do not pay for anything …

Note Added: The unlawful color of Law actions of any public servant are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 thus CORPORATE POLICY does not apply to the children, women and the men of these union States whereas the crimes committed were during time of engagement as an employee or Corporate Officer thereof, past and present, and all corporate policy is null and void, ab inito, to all union states and their lawful residents and totally fail to comply with the Supreme Law of the Land thereof. All paperwork must be in compliance to this Supreme Law of the Land or it is null and void on face ab inito less it stand in Treason against the Constitution therof.

“If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.” Journals of the Continental Congress. 26 October, 1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13.”Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy for an injury done to his person or property.” (Civil Rights) (Firemens Ins Co of Newark, N.J. vs Washington County. 2 Wisc 2d 214; 85 N.W.2d 840 1957.) CORPS and Engineers AKA Corporation and company’s LLC , City county states Federal 501 C-3-9s are Black ink On White Paper the term AKA Black ans White, Mostly the have no Blood or bloodline Soul or heart beat.Thereof. Only CORPS And Including corporation Can Be liable of Suit under Color of Law Fraud Scam.

CORPS AKA Corporation Company’s LLC City county states Federal are DEAD entity And only Exit in the minds of Men

As to the Civil War Grace the Lawful bloodline American’s Elected and public servants to honor thy OATH of Services Know as the 1776 1778 Ratified Constitution Law of Theseus Forty eight now fifty union States of Constitution oath of public servitude

All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and must NOT create any defacto laws which counter the Constitution:The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law containing income taxes, Bills,statutes and codes with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax.”Herein…Ohio’s Doctrine of Governmental Immunity was held unconstitutional and others to numerous to mention.” (Civil Rights) (Krause vs Ohio, app 2d 1 L.N.W. 2d 321 1971.) Reich vs State Highway Dept. 336, Mich 617: 194 N.W. 2d 700 197″Employees of a city or state are not immune from suit under statute relating civil rights for deprivations of rights on ground that officials were acting within the scope of their ground that officials were acting within the Scope of their responsibilities of performing a discretionary act.” (Bunch vs Barnett 376 F.Sup. 23.)”Title 28 Section 1391, this section makes it possible to bring actions against government officials and agencies in district court outside D.C.” (Civil Rights) (Norton vs Mcshane 14 L.Ed. 2d 274.)A suit in detinue or replevin in personam should lie to gain possession of property seized by the state. (Civil Rights) Stephen, Pleading (3rd Am ed) p. 47, 52, 69, 74; Ames Lectures on legal history, p. 64, 71; Wilkins v. Despard, 5 Term Rep- 112; Roberts v. Withered, % Mod. 193, 12 Mod. 92.

Whereas :

Magna Carta – USHistory.org

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/magnacarta.htm

Magna Carta, in a collection of Historic Documents of America. … The term ” Magna Carta” means “Great Charter.” 1215. JOHN, by the grace of God King of England… Treaty of 1213 – The Beginning of the Lie | Truth…

http://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/treaty-1213-beginning-lie

Jun 28, 2009 … The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican. … The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties.

The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man’s hand, so people couldn’t pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King’s = no allodial title = fraudulent permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled = False Claim = The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds of Gold and Silver to the Vatican for loans the king took to wage war on innocent woman, man and children in the name of God for the Pope of the Vatican .

(WHY?)(1). King John refused to accept The Vatican’s representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to = fraudulently rule England (religious or in fact?). (2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict = False Claim. Interdict means a prohibition.)

King John was excommunicated, a fraud scheme and extortion, and in trying to regain his stature he, the King, groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals = extortion, and swore submission and loyalty to the Pope thereof. King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his Declaratory Judgment surrender of his kingdoms = extortion, to the Pope, as the Churches, aka, Cult Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition

We the People and Citizens who pay Un-Constitution 1895 Taxes on united States of the Filed 1776 1778 ratified Constitution With the Vatican , British Federal Government including the rest of the world of the time. Published in the Newport newstime paper.

Notice of RICO Crimes/U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 10 – The U.S …

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html Cached

Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution … No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal …

Whereas : This Email and or Fax numbers to send your Possible Criminal Complaint on Misuse of Public tax for action looking like fraud

,rico thief of Services Thief of public funds. City , County State ,Federal For indictment investigation of a Lawful Bloodline American jury of of Theseus forty eight states now fifty the country , Absolutely NO Elected and public servants Registered Church members of and organized religion of faith Only be an lawful Bloodline American Jury

Whereas the IMF/IRS are unregistered foreign agents as is the 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 definition 15) United States means A) FEDERAL CORPORATION This corporation is de facto without standing in law as it was and remains to this day Treason against the 1776, ratified 1778, Constitution for the United States of America, violation of Oath of Office, Misprision’s, Collusion, Hones Service Fraud, Extortion, R.I.C.O., land theft, Identity Theft, Personage whereas No Constitutional Amendment authorized our elected, appointed and hired employees to create this Corporation.

These de facto Corporate governments are a usurpation of the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America, Violating their Oath of Office, and this corporatist onslaught in America has been since its creation, been an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and are of a TERRORIST REGIME in fact the real TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic. This fraud scheme now ties in with the Social Security Act under Titles IV, V and XIV and falls under the headings of Child Trafficking, Conflict of Interest whereas the Judge receives $125,000.00 per child taken out of the home and the CPS workers receives $7,500.00 per child – even more if child is physically handicapped. Make sure you ask your attorney, judge and prosecutor for a conflict of interest statement, in court, before the trial begins and in front of the Jury. Make sure you know the definition of “inn of court” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Ed. Question Jurisdiction and the kind of law they are practicing against you before going to trial/hearings. Fraud by color of law changes everything so look for the Flags they are flying within the Court Room. Study DDE Executive Order 10834 re these issues. Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

Where is the Corpus Delicti? It would appear the above are Crime Victims, Corpus Delicti themselves in all matters related thereof. This supposed tax would therefore have to comply to the Lawful Definition of “income” for all tax legislation as defined by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: Straton’s Indep. V Howbert 231 U.S. 339 (1913) “the gain derived from Capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include the sale or conversion of a capital asset“; the result of corporate activity. Exactly what corporate activity are these dead entities engaged in that they would be required to file a Corporate return? Show me the Corpus Delicti thereof. The Birth Record fraud scheme deliberately established by the legal community, members of Congress, Federal Reserve, the PRESIDENT AND CEO of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dba, A FEDERAL CORPORATION, JUDGES, LAWYERS and ATTORNEYS, Courts, Clerks of the Court, present and past, to steal these RULE 4-5.5 UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW

Carson City State Capitol Building 101 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: (775) 684-5670 Fax: (775) 684-5683. Las Vegas Grant Sawyer State Office Building

Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt

Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Hotline: 702-486-3132

100 North Carson Street

Carson City, NV 89701

Telephone: 775-684-1100

Fax: 775-684-1108

The current detention center was built in 1992. In 2011, the jail …

Gerald Antinoro Sheriff Email Sheriff’s Office 205 S. C St. P.O. Box 205. Virginia City, NV 89440

Ph: 775-847-0959

Fx: 775-847-0924

info@storeycounty.org

Indian Affairs | Western Nevada Agency

http://www.bia.gov/…/Western/WeAre/WesternNevada/index.htm

Mailing/Physical Address: Western Nevada Agency 311 E. Washington St. Carson City, NV 89701-4065 Telephone: (775) 887-3500 Telefax: (775) 887-3531

Justin D. Wendland Assistant Special Agent in Charge

District III

2600 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85004

(602) 379-6958 ext.1831

Ethics & Discipline | State Bar Of Nevada

nvbar.org/content/ethics-discipline Ethics & Discipline. … Ethics Hotline; Ethics Opinions; FAQs; File A Complaint; Rules; … Nevada Lawyer Editorial Board; Professional Responsibility & Ethics;

Stephanie Hirsch, Assistant CLE Director

Ext. 413 I stephanieh@nvbar.org

Marchelle Hedrick, CLE Seminar Coordinator

Ext. 420 I marchelleh@nvbar.org

CLE Fax: 702-385-2878

CLE Toll-Free Fax: 888-660-0060

Nevada Commission on Ethics – Home Page

ethics.nv.gov

Nevada Commission on Ethics

704 W. Nye Lane, Suite 204

Carson City, NV 89703

Tel: (775) 687-5469 Fax: (775) 687-1279 E-mail: ncoe@ethics.nv.gov

The Nevada Commission on Ethics, by the authority granted it under chapter 281A of NRS, strives to enhance the public’s faith and confidence in …

State of Nevada Board of Examiners for Social…Socwork.nv.gov/Licensees

State of Nevada Board of Examiners for. Social Workers. … State of Nevada; About. Mission & Funding; Board Members; … Licensees. New Applicants … Board of Examiners Meeting *** NOTICE OF PUBLIC FILING FOR MEETING *** BOARD OF EXAMINERS

LOCATION: Kim Frakes Executive Director

4600 Kietzke Lane, C121

Reno, Nevada 89502

Phone: (775) 688-2555

Email: socwork@nv.gov

Capitol Building

Annex, Second Floor

101 N. Carson Street

Carson City, Nevad

Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved U<l:CI-306-308- I 207 Sovereignty Notice: Title 17 Title 18 -2411242

I am not an attorney, medical professional or financial adviser and all the exchanges contained in this

email are for personal use only. This private email message, including any attachment[ s] is limited to

the sole use of the intended recipient [s] and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information.

Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, Public Servants or Local Corporate Govemment[s] ,et.

aL,and/or Third Party[ies] working in collhsion by collecting and/or monitoring My email[ s] and

collecting these communications Without by Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All

I Unauthorized Review. Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Only the

authority of this instrument ti the only live force that can change or alter this instrument

Without Prejudice and Without Recourse jo Me, Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any

and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights &! Reserved Rights. It is my hope that the things within this

email are a blessing unto every reader without exception, for We the People desire peaceful coexistence

with ALL! Most importantly we desire out “elected”, “hired”, or “Appointed” to Office carryon the

affairs of all Government agencies, departments in accordance to the Supreme Law of the Land

Communications Privacy Act. 18U.S.C 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq. governs distribution of this

“Message”; including attachments The originator intended this message for this specified recipients

only: it may contain the originators confidential and proprietary information. The Originator hereby

notifies unintended recipients that they mdy have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes

their message review discrimination, cop~ing , and and content-based actions Receipts-in error shall

notify the originator immediately bye-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carries of of

this message shall expeditiously deliver this message to intended recipients. See Quon v Arch Anything

stated in this e-mail may be limited in the tontent and is not to be taking out of context. **Wireless

Copyright Notice** Federal and State laws Govern Copy rights to this message You must have the Full

Written consent to alter, copy ,or use this Message. Originator acknowledge others copyrighted

content in this Message. Otherwise Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission dose

not constitute a waiver of any and/or All Irltellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1 = I207 =308

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE. NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Whereas : Please Email Call and Fax them on

Living Soul of a Lawful Bloodline Native American wesley glenn dick

The National Archives and Records Administration

8601 Adelphi Road

College Park, MD 20740-6001

orderstatus@nara.gov

1-866-272-6272

General NARA fax:   301-837-0483

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

919 US HWY 395 S

Gardnerville, NV 89410

(775) 265-8600

Reno Gazette-Journal Contact Form

Contact Us

Main Contact Numbers

Main contact: 775-788-6397

Customer Service Department: 800-970-7366

Press/Media Inquiries

Contact (203) 256-3390 or email press@americantowns.com

AmericanTowns.com

43 Ruane Street

Fairfield, CT 06824

(203) 256-3390

University of Nevada, Reno     |     

1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno     |   

(775) 784-1110 communications@unr.edu

Indian Country Today Media Network

ICTMN

Attn: Business Affairs

5218 Patrick Road

Verona, NY 13478

customerservice@ictmn.com or call us at (212) 600-2086

Editorial

editor@ictmn.com

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/contact

Indian Law Online Master Degree (MJIL)

Shonday Harmon

MJ Program Director – Online Legal Education

Email: shonday-harmon@utulsa.edu

kate@utulsa.edu

Phone: (918) 631-3991

Nevada Indian Commission

5500 Snyder Avenue, Building #3,

Carson City, NV 89701 | 775-687-8333

Indian Territory Historical territory, United States

Address: Britannica Customer Support

331 North La Salle Street

Chicago, IL 60654-2682

Hours: Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-4:30 PM, CST

Phone: 800.323.1229 Fax: 312.294.2104

contact@eb.com

    Native American Rights Fund of Boulder, CO

1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302-6296

(303) 447-8760 (303) 443-7776 fax

webmaster@narf.org

   Boulder CO (main) — 303-447-8760

Anchorage AK — 907-276-0680

Washington DC — 202-785-4166

CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE: THE NATIVE AMERICAN STRUGGLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

IN THE AMERICAN WEST,1830-1965 NEVADA LAW JOURNAL

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=nlj

Above this ___________________________________________________

Whereas : Native American wesley glenn dick Kidnap and held for Ransom

Nevada “Kidnapping” Laws (NRS 200.310) First degree kidnapping

First degree kidnapping occurs when someone “willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person” with brings the crime within the ambit of federal … Kidnapping for ransom is a common occurrence in … held permanently or for ransom).

   hold the person for ransom,

   for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person,

   for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon the person,

   to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person.

it is also first degree kidnapping in Nevada when a person “leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine the minor” from his/her guardians or with the intent to perpetrate upon the minor any unlawful act.

A person cannot be convicted of both the Nevada crime of robbery as well as first-degree kidnapping in a case if the movement of the victim was:

   incidental to the robbery, and did not increase the risk of harm to the victim.

For example, temporarily bringing a store clerk from the cash register to the backroom so you can rob the store probably would not qualify as kidnapping. Same for AKA Birth Certificate for ones Funding ones unjustified Salaries

Federal Kidnapping Law

Unlike Nevada law, federal kidnapping law under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 does not divide kidnapping into degrees. However both Nevada and federal courts levy very harsh punishments for kidanpping, including a possible life sentence. Read more about federal kidnapping law in Nevada in our article on federal kidnapping law in Nevada.

Use of a deadly weapon (NRS 193.165)

A Clark County judge may impose an additional penalty of 1 – 20 years in prison for using a deadly weapon or firearm in the commission of a Las Vegas crime of kidnapping, but the extra time may not exceed the underlying sentence. And if someone is convicted of first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon, the judge may not grant probation.

Whereas :

US Code – Title 42: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42 Apply To Wesley for this kidnapping ,held for ransom

… Title 42: THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE. Search by Keyword or Citation; Chapter 1 THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; … Chapter 17 FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Republic vs Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation https://www.youtube.com/watch&#8230;

Whereas : the Sheriff Department is

[PDF]Research Brief – 2014 Ethics – Nevada Legislature http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Publications/ResearchBriefs/EthicsInGovt.pdf

File format:Adobe PDF

Misuse of government resources … by the Nevada Constitution or State or local laws and who … of public funds, and the administration of laws and rules. … State or a political subdivision. Gifts … sole source of supply within the jurisdiction;. (2).

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”

And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial

officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer,

paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into

the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court.

People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is

engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.

1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery

itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. …

It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the

judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court

have been directly corrupted.”

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace

that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by

officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its

impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d

689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a

decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes

final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court”

vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354;

192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies

to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F.

Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into

which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that

fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589

(1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949);

Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the

court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain

circumstances.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective

observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude

or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is

unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162

(1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a

requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486

U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its

appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is

directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”)

(“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from

actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial

process.”).

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any

proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d

1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is

important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has

received justice.”

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the

appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt

v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an

interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of

recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.”

Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for

his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this

language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is

filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow

the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given

another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.

Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has

evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the

orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would

appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause

of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a

tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process

Clause.”).

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has

been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal

Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal

capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this

manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not

a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.

If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-

represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the

law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the

law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other

courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be

disqualified” under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts

without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has

been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that

he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the

interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both

treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Treaty of 1213 Contract Elected and public servants honor thy oath of Servitude for their public service, Lawful Bloodline American

1884 by Born Rights , Rights are not privileges and Immunities clause when Fraud and or RICO has been committed .are AKA Birth Records are said Lawful Bloodline American of the date 1884. or owners of the note 1884 as filed. 1903 Citizen until they fifth generation by congress Registered including Elected and public servants, Register Church members aka Voters ,, have to deregulation their Soul From the Crown and Only All Foreigners and foreigners have to pay back it the system. for the Privilege to live in the usa As woman , man and child would have to do in another country get it yet

“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevent…ed from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)] 18 U.S.C. 1001 et al.

Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?

Publius Huldah image By Publius Huldah — Bio and Archives October 31, 2010

1. Let us begin with what is True: Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God. Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;

The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;

Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent; &

Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

Because the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are. The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights, such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness; to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of self-defense; the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law; the right to speak; the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government; the right to worship God; etc.

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and

We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else’s interpretations WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature” (Federalist No. 33 ( 6th para), A. Hamilton.

So! The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2,clause 1,U.S. Constitution: This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God , the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all! But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called “rights” which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

So, in conclusion:

Full Headers Printable View

US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT

   codes.lp.findlaw.com › US Code › Title 18 › Part I

FindLaw provides US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT for … programs receiving Federal funds; Section 667 Theft of … Law Firm Marketing Services /

18 U.S. Code Chapter 31 – EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT |…

   www.law.cornell.edu › U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I

Federal law; World law; Lawyer directory; Legal encyclopedia. … § 666 – Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds § 667 – Theft of livestock

State Identity Theft Statutes and Criminal Use of…

http://www.ncsl.org/…/identity-theft-state-statutes.aspx

IRS On the heels of a years-long controversy over its targeting of mostly tea-party and Christian groups with what critics have described as harassment, the Internal Revenue Service now has come up with a new plan for those nonprofits – have them collect donors’ Social Security Numbers.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/irs-has-new-use-for-your-social-security-number/#LJ55ymCPIuIxc7GR.99

Also see 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C.A @ 611 et seq.

… restitution and identity theft passport laws. Every state has a law regarding identity theft or … Identity theft of credit, money, goods, services, .

A “public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the state or federal government:

“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of

their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”

[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]

A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8: 331 US 549, 91 K, ed, 1666m 67 S, Ct, 1409

“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law however close apparent adherence to mere form in methods of procedure which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)”Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”

Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) (”the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”).

“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739

FREEDOM FROM WAR THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT

IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

The Vatican Owns Your Soul – ALL Birth Certificates are held in Vatican Vaults. … by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the …

8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–432, § 3, struck out “(a)” before “The following” and redesignated pars. (1) to (7) as (a) to (g), respectively.

U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933

FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word “without” to citizens “within” the United States

To cover the debt in 1933 and future debt, the corporate government determined and established the value of the future labor of each incorporated individual in its jurisdiction to be $630,000. A bond of $630,000 is set on each Certificate of Live Birth. The certificates are bundled together into sets and then placed as securities on the open market. These certificates are then purchased by the Federal Reserve and/or foreign bankers. The purchaser is the “holder” of “Title.” This process made each and every person in this jurisdiction a bond servant.

U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified

WHAT IS HJR 192? Can we Discharge our Debts to the…http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/hjr-192-discharg

…/ Jun 7, 2014 … House Joint Resolution 192 was then passed by Congress on June 5, 1933. This law was passed to do away with the gold clause For lawful Bloodline American …

House Joint Resolution 192, 1933 – ****Redemption – tribe.net

tribes.tribe.net/redemption101/thread/07f05122-0090-408b…

House Joint Resolution 192 … this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt. HJR-192 …

.Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED…www.youhavetheright.com/tour3

Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. … passed House Joint Resolution 192 which served … impossible as notes of debt do not pay for anything …

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from the Greatspirit God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the “right” to live at other peoples’ expense.

Our Rights were bestowed by The Greatspirit AKA God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

1 “Natural Law” refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality: The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality, etc. Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man. Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights. And if you listen carefully to “liberals/progressives” as they speak on any topic, you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law. This is because they know no “law” but their own Wills.=The law of the land prevails.

– Talmud, Gittin Topics: justice and law We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

Furthermore We the People Request the insert the public funding right to have all copy’s of all filed CUSIP,, Bonds, Trust(s), Commodities, al et al, shall be made hole, from the beginning, due and payable immediately, in lawful money 12 U.S.C. 411: 48 Statute 337.

The COUNTY/TERRITORY/STATE OF OREGON west coast to OHIO east coast dba CORPORATION shall CEASE AND DESIST any further fraudulent activities against the residents of this state relating to Birth Records. This CORPORATION shall also make hole again to every resident of this state/STATE where they have been deceived by these birth records.

Furthermore the residents of this state demand full access to our CESTA QUE TRUST ACCOUNTS as granted us underneath the 1933 Bankruptcy Act and legislative Acts, al et al, which followed and your office shall file charges against the Congress of the UNITED STATES for breach of fiduciary duty as they were trustees of the Bankruptcy. These charges shall include: Fraud, Civil RICO, Collusion, Treason against the Constitution, Breach of Public Trust for starters.

Whereas:

All Public funded District Attorney our hear say Wittiness That are not EMISABLE in court

An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647).

“Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

EYEWITNESS RULE is that, in absence of eye-witness, or of any obtainable direct evidence as to what deceased did or failed to do by way of pre-caution, at and immediately before injury, pre-sumption is that he, prompted by natural instinct, was in exercise of care for his own safety, obtains. Edwards v. Perley, 223 Iowa 1119, 274 N.W. 910, 915.

“Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).

“Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of a case.” United States v. Lovasco. 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2D 752 (06/09/77).

“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,

Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880.

Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.; Jones Vs General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209,211 (7th Cir. 1996).

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.; Jones Vs General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209,211 (7th Cir. 1996).

Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.

Statutes forbidding administering of oath by attorney’s in cases in which they may be engaged applies to affidavits as well. Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244.

The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, in as much as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate. Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ.

“The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.

“The right to privacy includes an “individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589 (1977).

“Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.

“Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our Mother Earth and the Greatspirit ,God-given or Natural Rights to private property , to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits

of another man’s labors.

Please produce these Financial Documents as well: Birth Certificate Bond, CESTA QUE VIE TRUST, aka, ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST Accounts and all Commodities against this name traded and sold on Wall Street and D&B, owned by the American Bar Association, under C.U.S.I.P. Numbers and those produced by Pseudo Corporate Court/Banks by Case Number and C.U.S.I.P. Numbers thereof. Whereas all Government debt is paid and covered by FDCPA why this fraud scheme other than to steal and pilferage the trust accounts and bonds herein fraudulently created; I would strongly suggest a Grand Jury investigation into these matters. Whether of not the man [DAVID LEE BUESS], et al, is dead I, the living man, have the lawful right to make claim as all these are the Creation by Fraud in the Inducement and without my knowledge and consent thereof. See 1933 House Resolution 192 Lawful American non debt.

***The Article III Judge must be RELEASED and DISCHARGED from any obligation to impose military common law in his court created by the Constitution.***

In 1779 the United States of America became a Federal Corporation, without Amendment, an act of Treason. This is verified by 28 U.S.C. § 3002 Definitions 15) United States means A) A Federal Corporation. This act of Treason was neither questioned by our former members of Congress nor the President thus are Co-conspirators to this fraud scheme. This fraud enacted to overthrow our Constitutional Government and the Republican form of Government therein established; see “Supreme Law of the Land” defined page 1482 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8TH EDITION. 1. The U.S. Constitution. [Cases: Constitutional law Key: 1.1] 2. Acts of Congress made in accordance with the U.S. Constitution 3.U.S. Treaties. See SUPREMACY CLAUSE. The children, women and the men of these union states, now 50, are not federal/state employees subject to this de facto Federal Corporation, CORPORATE POLICY, thereof and said corporation is operating in fraud within these union States as this Corporation is not lawfully registered with the OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE nor the DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS and neither are they paying their Corporate Taxes thereof. This Federal Corporation has no standing in law thereof against any child, woman and man of these union states. Their Corporate policies must comply to the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America Ratified 1778 thereof. No government entity, employee, officer what-so-ever has any immunity from Prosecution (civil rights) Norton vs. Mcshane 14 L.Ed 2d 274. Also see htttp://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documenhts/1.pdf thereof.

Whereas : We are here to make sure Are Lawful Bloodline Americans of the Civil War 1866

Whereas :

Oaths of Office for Federal Judges: Statutes Defining Legal Custodian

5 U.S.C. 3331:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/3331.html

§ 3331. Oath of office Release date: 2004-01-16

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

5 U.S.C. 2906:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html

§ 2906. Oath; custody Release date: 2004-01-16

The oath of office taken by an individual under section 3331 of this title shall be delivered by him to, and preserved by, the House of Congress, agency, or court to which the office pertains.

28 U.S.C. 453:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/453.html

Whereas :

Sample Oath of Office as required by 28 U.S.C. 453:

Sample Appointment Affidavit (OPM Form 61) required by 5 U.S.C. 3331-3332

§ 453. Oaths of justices and judges Sheriff Release date: 2003-05-15

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 – FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec. 912. Officer or employee of the United States. STATUTE: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See this and this for more information.

But anywhere along the way during an offer and acceptance situation there can always be a refusal and a refusal does not constitute a refusal for cause or a dishonor because you can’t dishonor an offer, you can only dishonor a demand.

You can’t dishonor an offer. You may and you can choose to not honor an offer.

You can refuse an offer, but you can’t dishonor it. However, you can dishonor a demand. Once there’s an offer and acceptance been made and then one of the parties demands their consideration and you refuse to give it to them, now that’s a dishonor.

You can refuse an offer and that’s all you can do to it, or accept it. Now, if you accept it, according to the law books, you assume the liability for having accepted the offer. Whatever liability goes along with it, you’ve accepted it. One should decide whether or not one wants to assume that liability. In some cases you may want to as it may be beneficial to you. Remember that a constitution is a limiting, defining authority device.

J16th American Juristprudence, Second Edition, Section 177 states it best:

16th American Juris Prudence Section 177

The State did not give the Citizen his rights and thus cannot take them away as it chooses. The State did not establish the settled maxims and procedures by which a citizen must be dealt with, and thus cannot abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative enactments do not constitute the law of the land, but must conform to it.

From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

Despite this fact, as admitted in Senate Report 93-549 (1973): “A majority of people in the United States have lived all their lives (mischaracterized as British Subjects thanks to registration via Certificates of Birth) under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by statutes of national emergency.”

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his,or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office.

It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and recognized American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired public servant(s), Children’s Protection Services, Police, Sheriff’s, Martials, CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations, Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law, Corporations,

LLC’s, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers, Unions, et al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the 1776 Constitution for the united States of America, to all matters herein related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans’ right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the Greatspirit ‘GOD’ promised mine and your bloodline of this united States of America for all mankind thereof.

Whereas :

Remember as well merely being born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant/visitor a Citizen of the United States of America subject to the Fourteenth Amendment,[XIV], Amendment … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884).

House Joint Resolution 192, 1933 – ****Redemption – tribe.net tribes.tribe.net/redemption101/thread/07f05122-0090-408b

House Joint Resolution 192 … this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt. HJR-192 …

.Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED…www.youhavetheright.com/tour3

Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. … passed House Joint Resolution 192 which served … impossible as notes of debt do not pay for anything …

Note Added: The unlawful color of Law actions of any public servant are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 thus CORPORATE POLICY does not apply to the children, women and the men of these union States whereas the crimes committed were during time of engagement as an employee or Corporate Officer thereof, past and present, and all corporate policy is null and void, ab inito, to all union states and their lawful residents and totally fail to comply with the Supreme Law of the Land thereof. All paperwork must be in compliance to this Supreme Law of the Land or it is null and void on face ab inito less it stand in Treason against the Constitution therof.

Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?

Publius Huldah image

By Publius Huldah — Bio and Archives October 31, 2010

1. Let us begin with what is True: Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God. Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;

The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;

Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent; &

Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

Because the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are. The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights, such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness; to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of self-defense; the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law; the right to speak; the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government; the right to worship God; etc.

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and

We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else’s interpretations WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature” (Federalist No. 33 ( 6th para), A. Hamilton.

So! The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2,clause 1,U.S. Constitution: This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God , the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all! But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called “rights” which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

So, in conclusion:

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the “right” to live at other peoples’ expense.

Our Rights were bestowed by God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

1 “Natural Law” refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality: The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality, etc. Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man. Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights. And if you listen carefully to “liberals/progressives” as they speak on any topic, you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law. This is because they know no “law” but their own Wills.=The law of the land prevails.

– Talmud, Gittin Topics: justice and law We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

“If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.” Journals of the Continental Congress. 26 October, 1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13.”Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy for an injury done to his person or property.” (Civil Rights) (Firemens Ins Co of Newark, N.J. vs Washington County. 2 Wisc 2d 214; 85 N.W.2d 840 1957.) CORPS and Engineers AKA Corporation and company’s LLC , City county states Federal 501 C-3-9s are Black ink On White Paper the term AKA Black ans White, Mostly the have no Blood or bloodline Soul or heart beat.Thereof. Only CORPS And Including corporation Can Be liable of Suit under Color of Law Fraud Scam.

CORPS AKA Corporation Company’s LLC City county states Federal are DEAD entity And only Exit in the minds of Men

As to the Civil War Grace the Lawful bloodline American’s Elected and public servants to honor thy OATH of Services Know as the 1776 1778 Ratified Constitution Law of Theseus Forty eight now fifty union States of Constitution oath of public servitude

All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and must NOT create any defacto laws which counter the Constitution:The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law containing income taxes, Bills,statutes and codes with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax.”Herein…Ohio’s Doctrine of Governmental Immunity was held unconstitutional and others to numerous to mention.” (Civil Rights) (Krause vs Ohio, app 2d 1 L.N.W. 2d 321 1971.) Reich vs State Highway Dept. 336, Mich 617: 194 N.W. 2d 700 197″Employees of a city or state are not immune from suit under statute relating civil rights for deprivations of rights on ground that officials were acting within the scope of their ground that officials were acting within the Scope of their responsibilities of performing a discretionary act.” (Bunch vs Barnett 376 F.Sup. 23.)”Title 28 Section 1391, this section makes it possible to bring actions against government officials and agencies in district court outside D.C.” (Civil Rights) (Norton vs Mcshane 14 L.Ed. 2d 274.)A suit in detinue or replevin in personam should lie to gain possession of property seized by the state. (Civil Rights) Stephen, Pleading (3rd Am ed) p. 47, 52, 69, 74; Ames Lectures on legal history, p. 64, 71; Wilkins v. Despard, 5 Term Rep- 112; Roberts v. Withered, % Mod. 193, 12 Mod. 92.

Whereas :

Magna Carta – USHistory.org

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/magnacarta.htm

Magna Carta, in a collection of Historic Documents of America. … The term ” Magna Carta” means “Great Charter.” 1215. JOHN, by the grace of God King of England… Treaty of 1213 – The Beginning of the Lie | Truth…

http://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/treaty-1213-beginning-lie

Jun 28, 2009 … The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican. … The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties.

The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man’s hand, so people couldn’t pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King’s = no allodial title = fraudulent permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled = False Claim = The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot of pounds of Gold and Silver to the Vatican for loans the king took to wage war on innocent woman, man and children in the name of God for the Pope of the Vatican .

(WHY?)(1). King John refused to accept The Vatican’s representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to = fraudulently rule England (religious or in fact?). (2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict = False Claim. Interdict means a prohibition.)

King John was excommunicated, a fraud scheme and extortion, and in trying to regain his stature he, the King, groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals = extortion, and swore submission and loyalty to the Pope thereof. King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his Declaratory Judgment surrender of his kingdoms = extortion, to the Pope, as the Churches, aka, Cult Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition

We the People and Citizens who pay Un-Constitution 1895 Taxes on united States of the Filed 1776 1778 ratified Constitution With the Vatican , British Federal Government including the rest of the world of the time. Published in the Newport newstime paper.

Notice of RICO Crimes/U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 10 – The U.S …

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html Cached

Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution … No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal …

Whereas : This Email and or Fax numbers to send your Possible Criminal Complaint on Misuse of Public tax for action looking like fraud

,rico thief of Services Thief of public funds. City , County State ,Federal For indictment investigation of a Lawful Bloodline American jury of of Theseus forty eight states now fifty the country , Absolutely NO Elected and public servants Registered Church members of and organized religion of faith Only be an lawful Bloodline American Jury

Whereas the IMF/IRS are unregistered foreign agents as is the 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 definition 15) United States means A) FEDERAL CORPORATION This corporation is de facto without standing in law as it was and remains to this day Treason against the 1776, ratified 1778, Constitution for the United States of America, violation of Oath of Office, Misprision’s, Collusion, Hones Service Fraud, Extortion, R.I.C.O., land theft, Identity Theft, Personage whereas No Constitutional Amendment authorized our elected, appointed and hired employees to create this Corporation.

These de facto Corporate governments are a usurpation of the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America, Violating their Oath of Office, and this corporatist onslaught in America has been since its creation, been an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and are of a TERRORIST REGIME in fact the real TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic. This fraud scheme now ties in with the Social Security Act under Titles IV, V and XIV and falls under the headings of Child Trafficking, Conflict of Interest whereas the Judge receives $125,000.00 per child taken out of the home and the CPS workers receives $7,500.00 per child – even more if child is physically handicapped. Make sure you ask your attorney, judge and prosecutor for a conflict of interest statement, in court, before the trial begins and in front of the Jury. Make sure you know the definition of “inn of court” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Ed. Question Jurisdiction and the kind of law they are practicing against you before going to trial/hearings. Fraud by color of law changes everything so look for the Flags they are flying within the Court Room. Study DDE Executive Order 10834 re these issues. Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

Where is the Corpus Delicti? It would appear the above are Crime Victims, Corpus Delicti themselves in all matters related thereof. This supposed tax would therefore have to comply to the Lawful Definition of “income” for all tax legislation as defined by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: Straton’s Indep. V Howbert 231 U.S. 339 (1913) “the gain derived from Capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include the sale or conversion of a capital asset“; the result of corporate activity. Exactly what corporate activity are these dead entities engaged in that they would be required to file a Corporate return? Show me the Corpus Delicti thereof. The Birth Record fraud scheme deliberately established by the legal community, members of Congress, Federal Reserve, the PRESIDENT AND CEO of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dba, A FEDERAL CORPORATION, JUDGES, LAWYERS and ATTORNEYS, Courts, Clerks of the Court, present and past, to steal these RULE 4-5.5 UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW

Carson City State Capitol Building 101 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: (775) 684-5670 Fax: (775) 684-5683. Las Vegas Grant Sawyer State Office Building

Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt

Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Hotline: 702-486-3132

100 North Carson Street

Carson City, NV 89701

Telephone: 775-684-1100

Fax: 775-684-1108

The current detention center was built in 1992. In 2011, the jail …

Gerald Antinoro Sheriff Email Sheriff’s Office 205 S. C St. P.O. Box 205. Virginia City, NV 89440

Ph: 775-847-0959

Fx: 775-847-0924

info@storeycounty.org

Indian Affairs | Western Nevada Agency

http://www.bia.gov/…/Western/WeAre/WesternNevada/index.htm

Mailing/Physical Address: Western Nevada Agency 311 E. Washington St. Carson City, NV 89701-4065 Telephone: (775) 887-3500 Telefax: (775) 887-3531

Justin D. Wendland Assistant Special Agent in Charge

District III

2600 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85004

(602) 379-6958 ext.1831

Ethics & Discipline | State Bar Of Nevada

nvbar.org/content/ethics-discipline Ethics & Discipline. … Ethics Hotline; Ethics Opinions; FAQs; File A Complaint; Rules; … Nevada Lawyer Editorial Board; Professional Responsibility & Ethics;

Stephanie Hirsch, Assistant CLE Director

Ext. 413 I stephanieh@nvbar.org

Marchelle Hedrick, CLE Seminar Coordinator

Ext. 420 I marchelleh@nvbar.org

CLE Fax: 702-385-2878

CLE Toll-Free Fax: 888-660-0060

Nevada Commission on Ethics – Home Page

ethics.nv.gov

Nevada Commission on Ethics

704 W. Nye Lane, Suite 204

Carson City, NV 89703

Tel: (775) 687-5469 Fax: (775) 687-1279 E-mail: ncoe@ethics.nv.gov

The Nevada Commission on Ethics, by the authority granted it under chapter 281A of NRS, strives to enhance the public’s faith and confidence in …

State of Nevada Board of Examiners for Social…Socwork.nv.gov/Licensees

State of Nevada Board of Examiners for. Social Workers. … State of Nevada; About. Mission & Funding; Board Members; … Licensees. New Applicants … Board of Examiners Meeting *** NOTICE OF PUBLIC FILING FOR MEETING *** BOARD OF EXAMINERS

LOCATION: Kim Frakes Executive Director

4600 Kietzke Lane, C121

Reno, Nevada 89502

Phone: (775) 688-2555

Email: socwork@nv.gov

Capitol Building

Annex, Second Floor

101 N. Carson Street

Carson City, Nevada

Next, repudiate the presumptions, accept the Indictment, and return it to the government acting as plaintiff. On the face of a copy of the Indictment write: “Accepted for Value by Grantee, Returned for Value by Grantor-Settlor, On Special Deposit Without Recourse, IT IS ORDERED: Discharge All Obligations/Presentments/Bonds/Fees/Taxes/Tithes to Extinguish the Debt and Settle the Account of THOMAS DEEGAN: Date____________________,1884 Lawful Bloodline American Signature_________________________________(Upper and Lower Case) Authorized Representative, all rights reserved.

I clearly attest and declare that I am an 1884 Bloodline American born on the land of the union ___________state and am one of the free, sovereign to hunt fish right to travel freely in all 50 states, and independent people of the United States as defined by The Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783. I have never considered any other political status actual or implied to be a benefit.

Autographed by__(handprinted first name only)____Thomas (thumbprint seal).

I revoke all and any consent actual or implied to act as or be considered a voluntary surety, trustee, volunteer, a corporate officer of any kind, a tax payer, commercial driver, corporate franchise operator, warrant officer, licensee, beneficiary of the public charitable trust or any other individual or employee subject to the British Crown or the British King in any capacity whatsoever.

Elected and Public servants have thirty to Comply with your Order of Constitution Oath obligation from Treaty of 1213

Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved U<l:CI-306-308- I 207 Sovereignty Notice: Title 17 – Title 18 -2411242

I am not an attorney, medical professional or financial adviser and all the exchanges contained in this

email are for personal use only. This private email message, including any attachment[ s] is limited to

the sole use of the intended recipient [s] and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information.

Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, Public Servants or Local Corporate Govemment[s] ,et.

aL,and/or Third Party[ies] working in collhsion by collecting and/or monitoring My email[ s] and

collecting these communications Without by Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All

I Unauthorized Review. Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Only the

authority of this instrument ti the only live force that can change or alter this instrument

Without Prejudice and Without Recourse jo Me, Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any

and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights &! Reserved Rights. It is my hope that the things within this

email are a blessing unto every reader without exception, for We the People desire peaceful coexistence

with ALL! Most importantly we desire out “elected”, “hired”, or “Appointed” to Office carryon the

affairs of all Government agencies, departments in accordance to the Supreme Law of the Land

Communications Privacy Act. 18U.S.C 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq. governs distribution of this

“Message”; including attachments The originator intended this message for this specified recipients

only: it may contain the originators confidential and proprietary information. The Originator hereby

notifies unintended recipients that they mdy have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes

their message review discrimination, cop~ing , and and content-based actions Receipts-in error shall

notify the originator immediately bye-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carries of of

this message shall expeditiously deliver this message to intended recipients. See Quon v Arch Anything

stated in this e-mail may be limited in the tontent and is not to be taking out of context. **Wireless

Copyright Notice** Federal and State laws Govern Copy rights to this message You must have the Full

Written consent to alter, copy ,or use this Message. Originator acknowledge others copyrighted

content in this Message. Otherwise Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission dose

not constitute a waiver of any and/or All Irltellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1 = I207 =308

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE. NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT

1884 Family Lawful Bloodline Americans We Come In Peace

Autograph Of Living Soul _____________________________________________Date ___________________Seal __________

                                                                                                                                                            Red Blood ink Right thumb print

1884 Family Lawful Bloodline Americans We Come In Peace

Autograph Of Living Soul _____________________________________________Date ___________________Seal __________

                                                                                                                                                            Red Blood ink Right thumb print

1884 Family Lawful Bloodline Americans We Come In Peace

Autograph Of Living Soul _____________________________________________Date ___________________Seal __________

                                                                                                                                                            Red Blood ink Right thumb print

    1903 Registrar Legal Citizen Register Voter and OR Church Organization member We Come In Peace

Autograph Of Signature Living Soul _____________________________________________Date

___________________Seal __________

                                                                                                                                                            Red Blood ink Right thumb print

1903 Registrar Legal Citizen Register Voter and OR Church Organization member We Come In Peace

Autograph Of Signature Living Soul _____________________________________________Date

__________________Seal __________

                                                                                                                                                            Red Blood ink Right thumb print

Post on all media thank you

About arnierosner

As an American I advocate a republic form of government, self-reliance, and adherence to the basic philosophy of the founding fathers and the founding documents, I ONLY respect those who respect and "HONOR" their honor. No exceptions!
This entry was posted in Civil Rights Violations. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s