INDEX

 

01 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE

02 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

03a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS

03b SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION

04a REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

04b RELEASE OF POWER OF PROPERTY

05 POWERS OF ATTORNEY

COVER LETTER I

COVER LETTER II

EXHIBIT A – COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE

EXHIBIT A2 – COPY OF BACK OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE

EXHIBIT B – PHOTO COPY OF SS CARD, DRIVER LICENSE

EXHIBIT C – COPY OF DD 214 (if discharged from military)

EXHIBIT D – COPY OF HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA (or where it can be validated)

EXHIBIT E – TRUST RECEIPTS, 89 CJS

EXHIBIT F – DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER

EXHIBIT G – PARSON

EXHIBIT H – TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT I – LETTER ROGATORY

EXHIBIT J – DIPLOMATIC PROTEST

EXHIBIT K – INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES

EXHIBIT L – DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF VALUE

EXHIBIT M – INLAND EMPIRE UNDER MOYTOY

EXHIBIT N – FIRST CORPORATE DIPLOMATIC PROTEST

EXHIBIT O – CHRISTIAN APPELLATION

EXHIBIT P – UCC 1 SHOWING LIEN CREDITOR

EXHIBIT Q1 – BENEFICIARY TO THE ORIGINAL TRUST

EXHIBIT Q2 – GOVERNMENT IS TRUSTEE, NOT BENEFICIARY

EXHIBIT R – CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK

EXHIBIT S – CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP

EXHIBIT T – NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT

EXHIBIT U – NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION/REPATRIATION

EXHIBIT V – GRANTOR INJURED BEYOND DAMAGE RECOVERY

EXHIBIT W – CLAIM OF POSTLIMINY

EXHIBIT X – DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE

EXHIBIT Y – GRANTOR NOT A FRANCHISE

EXHIBIT Z – DIVERSION ORDER, STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

 

******************************************************************8

 EXHIBIT Y – Grantor NOT a Franchise

 

 

Grantor explicitly denies being a Franchise, or any part of a franchise, for the benefit of any corporate function, action, body, government, or other “entitlement” outside of Grantor’s own autonomous Free Inhabitancy, therefore, not subject to any fiction of law or corporation, to wit:

 

In PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.) we find that "...where there is a capacity to take and hold; the only thing wanting is the franchise of succession, so that the property of the society may pass to successors instead of heirs. Termes de la Ley 123; 1 Bl. Com. 368-72. This and other franchises are the ligaments which unite a body of men into one, and knit them together as a natural person (4 Co. 65 a); creating a corporation, an invisible incorporeal being, a metaphysical person (2 Pet. 223); existing only in contemplation of law, but having the properties of individuality ..."

Then we find that, "It is the object and effect of the incorporation, to give to the artificial person the same capacity and rights as a natural person can have..." and, "...they can take and enjoy property to the extent of their franchises as fully as an individual..."

Please note near the beginning in bold "...where there is a capacity to take and hold;..." is a stipulation that only applies to the ability to "take and hold [TITLE]". Claimant has no record or evidence that any corporation has a "Right of Soil", except the State Republic chartered. And, remember, the People, not “persons,” are the State.

Now we have discovered that a Corporation is a person, yes, even a natural person. Every "person", or those administering for said "person" outside their corporate "body" has the responsibility of acting and reacting within the parameters of "Common Law", which governs the natural Man. It is understood that all "persons" are governed by statutes, codes, rules, and regulations, but the obligations for corporate, privileged "persons" cannot be enforced upon any Private Man. Wrongful actions by any corporate entity that bring upon Private Man injury shall be recompensed with remedy under Common Law.

So with that in mind, Libellees have given the person, agency, and etc., knowledge!

Under USC Title 42 §1986. Action for neglect to prevent …, it states: “Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in preventing … Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured…”

 

*********************************************************************

 

  DIVERSION ORDER

STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

 

Date: __________________________

 

To: _______________________________ (name of carrier)

__________________________________

__________________________________ (address)

 

 

RECONSIGNMENT OR DIVERSION ORDER

Straight Bill of Lading

 

Dated: _____________________________

Number: ____________________________

Consignor: __________________________

Consigned to: ________________________

 

The undersigned consignor under your straight bill of lading number _____________, dated __________ (month &day) _______ (year), issued by you to __________, of ________________ (address), __________ (city), ___________ (county), ___________ (state), covering goods described in the bill of lading as ____________, hereby instructs you to disregard the original instructions as to place of delivery and recipient on the bill and to divert and deliver the goods to __________, of _______________________ (address), __________ (city), _________ (county), _________ (state), at _________ (location).

 

The undersigned will pay all reasonable costs and charges of this diversion on your reasonable request, and warrants its authority to effect this diversion or reconsignment. The undersigned shall indemnify and hold you harmless for any loss, damage, or expenses in the event the diversion or reconsignment is challenged.

 

____________________________________________

(Name of consignor)

 ********************************************************************************

 

EXHIBIT X – Demand for Full Disclosure

 

Claimant/Grantor does herein order all de facto agencies of the UNITED STATES government and all related and subordinate agencies to disclose the True and Complete Facts and Details of all monetary, currency, and negotiable instrument investments pertaining to the accounts of Grantor that are being, or have been, withheld from ready access by Grantor to be released immediately to Grantor, and avoid Fraud and Deception, as per:

 

“Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud.”

Universal Inv. Co v Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P 2d 485, 127 Ariz. 213. (Ariz App 1980)

 

“Where one under duty of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make fully and truthful disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment.”

Stewart v Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P 2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34. (Ariz. 1937)

 

 

EXHIBIT T -

 

NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT AND RIGHT OF SOIL

 

TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS COME, be informed, take Notice: The married parents of this living man, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter referred to as “Claimant,” celebrated Claimant’s Nativity on September 09, 1944, on Douglas County, Republic of Missouri, Claimant being the sixth of eight children, conceived and born, under lawful Christian parentage, introduced and witnessed, with entry into the Family Bible, into the Birthright of Jacob/Israel, bearing to this day and forward the Birthright and Promise of Claimant's Creator, Yahweh. Claimant declares full Rights as a Legitimate Child under the Law.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary; NATURAL CHILDREN. “In the phraseology of the English or American law, natural children are children born out of wedlock, or bastards, and are distinguished from legitimate children;…”

Claimant makes known to the entire world that; Claimant is a Living Man with Standing upon the Land, being of Aboriginal Cherokee and Israelite descent and stock, upon the American terra firma, within the surveyed geographical boundaries of the organic State of Missouri and in capita holder in due course by Birthright, born a legitimate child, in the image of his Heavenly Father who is Creator of all that is, and by way of this Notice of Birthright, assures all that Claimant is a living man of substance and surety and able to give credit where Claimant chooses, in any amount, without limits, but without limited liability. Claimant is NOT a corporation, fiction, legal entity, legal fiction, debt, debtor (dead – deador, debtor), or any other juristic "person".

 

Claimant plainly declares that he was “birthed” of the water from his Mother’s womb upon the dry land of the Nation of Missouri; and that the water from his Mother’s womb was the only water whereby Claimant was “born”. Claimant explicitly denies any association with the “berthing” of a new vessel in the world of commerce other than Claimant’s own “person”, yielding nothing to the assumption that any vessel owned by any legal entity, legal fiction, or corporate association that may have been created at, or near, the same time had, or has, any semblance of association with Claimant.

 

With this knowledge of the Truth, this Claimant, offers testimony before any Juristic Society, Counsel of Men, or any fiction of character, that Claimant is not "bonded or bound" to any, save Claimant's Master, Yahshua, the only begotten Son of the Living Creator, who became Claimant's surety by way of Blood Sacrifice at the Price of thirty pieces of silver (a commercial transaction), given into the hand of a hired liar and deceiver (a fiction), working in conjunction with the Courts of that day, an estimated 2000 years ago. Therefore, Claimant cannot be induced into any "body politic" contrary with sound Christian Doctrine instilled upon Claimant’s conscience.

 

This Notice of Birthright is offered as Corrective NOTICE that any Certificates of Birth entered into the fictional corporate world of commerce is based in fraud, propagated in fraud, brought forward in deceit, and joined in deliberate and malicious trespass upon the conscience and free will of a man bearing the Birthright of Jacob/Israel and Right of Soil.

 

This NOTICE of Birthright is Fair Notice and Warning for any and all Actors, Fictions, and Corporate Representatives that the Natal Soil of this Child of the Jacob/Israel Birthright was NOT a "Port of Entry" for any newly berthed "Legal Entity" to be entered into the fictional, factional or corporate marketplace as bond, surety, equity, futures, chattel, stock, or trade material, and stands as correction of any assumption, presumption, or position in any corporate realm to the contrary.

 

As all jurisdiction flows from Right of Soil, please take Notice of the following: POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845), "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed... ...[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted... ...Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law..."

 

Claimant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined.

*********************************************************************

.  EXHIBIT R -

 

CLAIM OF “FAMOUS MARK”

 

Claimant herein declares his Claim of “Famous Mark” to be his own and not the property of any other.

TITLE 15, CH 22, SUB CH III § 1125

§ 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

Release date: 2005-08-01

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement [idem sonanse] under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

(b) Importation

Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.

(c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks

(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;

(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used;

(C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;

(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;

(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used;

(F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks’ owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;

(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and

(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. [Berth “registry” is the principal register of the Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.]

(2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 1116 of this title unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner’s reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark [NOTE: birth/berth certificate is worth "how much??" [11 million “credits”] on world trade market, and, how many "good works" - "goods" have you provided to society?]. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 1117 (a) and 1118 of this title, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.

(3) The ownership by a person ["personam", not "in persona"] of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.

(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

(d) Cyberpiracy prevention

(1)

(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—

(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and

(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—

(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;

(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or

(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section706 of title 18 or section220506 of title 36.

(B)

(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

(V) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VII) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VIII) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and

(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.

(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.

(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee.

(E) As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

(2)

(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if—

(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c) of this section; and

(ii) the court finds that the owner—

(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or

(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by—

(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and

(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.

(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.

(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which—

(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or

(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.

(D)

(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall—

(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court’s control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and

(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.

(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.

(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.

(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.

 

 

COPYRIGHT NOTICE OF TRADE-NAME, TRADE-MARK

 

Copyright Notice: All rights reserved regarding common-law copyright of trade-name/trade-mark, JOHN QUINCY JONES©—as well as any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of said tradename/trade-mark–Common Law Copyright© 1965 upon attainment of age of majority by John-Quincy: Jones©. Said common-law tradename/trade-mark, JOHN QUINCY JONES©, may neither be used, nor reproduced, neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of John-Quincy: Jones©, hereinafter “Secured Party.” With the Intent of being contractually bound, any juristic person, as well as the agent of said juristic person, shall display, nor otherwise use in any manner, any of the common-law trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES©, nor the common-law copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, nor any variation in the spelling of, JOHN QUINCY JONES©, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Secured Party, as signified by Secured Party’s signature in blue ink. Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES©, and all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Secured Party is not now, nor has Secured Party ever been, an accommodation party, nor a surety, for the purported debtor, i.e., “JOHN QUINCY JONES” nor for any derivative of, nor for any variation in the spelling of, said name, nor for any other juristic person, and is so-indemnified and held harmless by Debtor, i.e., “JOHN QUINCY JONES” in Hold-harmless and Indemnity Agreement No. (UCC1) 123456789, dated the Seventh Day of the Second Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Five, against any and all claims, legal actions, orders, warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits, costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, as are due and as might become due, now existing and as might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by Debtor for any and every reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever.

 

Selfexecuting Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized use: By this Copyright Notice, both the juristic person and the agent of said juristic person, hereinafter jointly and severally “User,” consent and agree that any use of JOHN QUINCY JONES© other than authorized use as set forth above constitutes unauthorized use and counterfeiting of Secured Party’s common-law copyrighted property and contractually binds User and renders this Copyright Notice a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party, and signifies that User: (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in all of Users assets, land and personal property, and all of User’s interest in assets, land, and personal property, in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each occurrence of use of any of the common-law-copyrighted trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES©, as well as for each and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of, and variations in the spelling of, JOHN QUINCY JONES©, plus costs, plus triple damages; (2) authenticates this Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party, and wherein User pledges all of User’s property; i.e., all assets, land, consumer goods farm products, inventory, equipment, money, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letter-of-credit rights, chattel paper, instruments, deposit accounts, accounts, documents, and general intangibles, and all User’s interest in all such foregoing property, now owned and hereafter acquired, now existing and hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing User’s contractual obligation in favor of Secured Party for Users unauthorized use of Secured Party’s common-law copyrighted property; (3) consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of a UCC Financing Statement in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorder’s office, wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party; (4) consents and agrees that said UCC Financing Statement described above in paragraph “(3)” is a continuing financing statement, and further consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured Party’s perfected security interest in all of User’s property and interest property pledged as collateral in this Security Agreement and described above in paragraph “(2),” until User’s contractual obligation theretofore incurred has been fully satisfied; (5) consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of any UCC Financing Statement, as described above in paragraphs “(3)” and “(4),” as well as the filing of any Security Agreement, as described above in paragraph “(2),” in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorder’s office; (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings described in paragraphs “(4)” and “(5)” above are not, and may not be considered, bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus; (7) waives all defenses; and (8) appoints Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon User’s default re User’s contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party as set forth below under “Payment Terms” and “Default Terms,” granting Secured Party full authorization and power for engaging in any and all actions on behalf of User, as Secured Party, in Secured Party’s sole discretion deems appropriate, and User further consents and agrees that this appointment of Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon User’s default is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest.

 

User further consents and agrees with all of the following additional terms of Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use: Payment Terms: In accordance with fees for unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES© as set forth above, User hereby consents and agrees that User shall pay Secured Party all

unauthorized-use fees in full within ten (10) days of the date User is sent Secured Party’s invoice, hereinafter “invoice,” itemizing said fees. Default Terms: In event of non-payment in full of all unauthorized use fees by User within ten (10) days of date invoice is sent. User shall be deemed in default and: (a) all of User’s property and interest in property pledged as collateral by User, as described above in paragraph “(2),” immediately becomes, i.e., is property of Secured Party; (b) Secured Party is appointed User’s Authorized Representative as set forth above in paragraph “(8)”; and (C) User consents and agrees that Secured Party may take possession of, as well as otherwise dispose of in any manner that Secured Party, in Secured Party’s sole discretion, deems appropriate, including, but not limited by, sale at auction at any time following User’s

default, and without further notice, any and all of User’s former property and interest in property, as described above in paragraph “(2),” formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, in respect of this “Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use,” that Secured Party, again in Secured Party’s sole discretion, deems appropriate.

 

Terms for Curing Default: Upon event of default, as set forth above under “Default Terms,” irrespective of any and all of User’s former property and interest in property, in the possession of, as well as disposed of by, Secured Party, as authorized above under “Default Terms,” User may cure User’s default regarding the remainder of User’s former property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral that is neither in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of, by Secured Party within twenty (20) days of date of User’s default only by payment in full.

 

Terms of Strict Foreclosure: Users non-payment in full of all unauthorized-use fees itemized in Invoice within said twenty (20) day period for curing default as set forth above under “Terms for Curing Default” authorizes Secured Party’s immediate non-judicial strict foreclosure on any and all remaining property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, which is not in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of by, Secured Party upon expiration of said twenty (20) day default-curing period. Ownership subject to common-law copyright and UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement filed with the UCC filing office.

Record Owner: John-Quincy: Jones© Autograph Common Law Copyright ©1965. Unauthorized use of any of “John-Quincy: Jones©” incurs same unauthorized-use fees as those associated with JOHN QUINCY JONES© as set forth above in paragraph “(1)” under “Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use.”

 

***********************************

 

 EXHIBIT S – Claim of Ownership

 

CERTIFICATE - Claim of Ownership via Warehouse Receipt

 

I, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter known as “Claimant,” do herein place Claim of Ownership over, upon and against any, and all, facets, aspects, phases and relations of all actions of Real Existence and True Character signified by a/any piece of parchment, paper or electronic data entry that makes reference to the Living Man of the Male Gender herein referred to as Claimant by any Name, Title, Number (or, group of numbers) or Assignment other than Claimants’ Christian Appellation.

 

All Fictions, Legal Entities and Vessels in commerce that make any reference to Claimant are herein claimed as “Collateral” and property belonging to Claimant.

 

According to Barron’s Dictionary of Banking Terms, a certificate is a “paper establishing an ownership claim.” The registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

 

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse receipts”, now printed on banknote paper. The items included on a warehouse receipt, as described at Section 7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

~1. The location of the warehouse where the goods are stored… (residence) Claimant was born of a woman on, not “in,” Douglas County on Missouri State and Claimant has no “residence,” but “Lives” within His own carbon based body of Flesh, Bone and Blood.

~2. The date of issue of the receipt…(“Date issued”) Claimants’ Nativity was (according to records in Family Bible) September 09, 1944, however, Informants issued, or caused to be issued, a fictitious Warehouse Receipt stating a “berth-date” of a newly launched “vessel” in commerce on January 15, 1945.

~3. The consecutive number of the receipt…(found on the certificate, usually in red) File number 123-45 is found on the “Notification of Birth Registration” that was recorded at the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Subsequent “copy” of “Birth Certificate” shows State File Number 124-44-****** with a “bond” number on the back side, lower right corner, ******.

~4. A description of the goods or of the packages containing them… (Name, sex, DOB, etc.) Claimants’ Christian Appellation was not found on said Warehouse Receipt; however, multiple misnomers of “similar sound” were on the face of said document. One can comprehend that said document is making reference to Claimant through mention of sex, place of birth, etc.; therefore, Claimant makes Claim to such collateral.

~5. The signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent… (clerk, doctor, state registrar, etc.) J.C. Capt, Director of the Census signed on the lower left corner of said document. An indeterminate “person” signed as “Special Agent, Bureau of the Census.”

 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 7^th ed., “Birth and marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as “warehouse receipts” under the Uniform Commercial Code.”

 

Warehouse receipt. “…A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security.”

 

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. [In order to “borrow,” collateral must be “pledged.” A “Maxim” of Law states that one cannot pledge what it does not “own.”]

 

All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated “warehouse receipts” for births and marriages in order to pledge a fictional “vessel” they created on paper as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve’s banks. The “Full Faith and Credit” of the American people is said to be that which back the nation’s debt. That simply means the American people’s ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers (slaves), the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources – “human resources,” that is.

 

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of humans began on July 14, 1862, when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a “per head” basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle, chattel) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without United States, 28 USC 1746(1), that the foregoing is true and correct.                                                                       

L.S.

by___________________________________authorized representative    

 

********************************************************

 

 EXHIBIT Q(2) – Gov. as Trustee, NOT Beneficiary

 

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (of the Public) ARE TRUSTEES

 

Am Juris Prud  - public ‘officers’ ARE trustees

 

 :* *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247* “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.

[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.

[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.

[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.

[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.

[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute.

 

See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

 

 

****************************************************************

 

 EXHIBIT O – Christian Appellation

 

Statutory Declaration of True Name

and

NOTICE and Declaration of Law and Jurisdiction

 

I am recognized and known by my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family. If I choose to respond, it is only to such Christian Appellation. I am not a corporation, nor a "person", therefore, no legislative court shall ever obtain "personal jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I cannot use copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against any legislative, or executive, body, therefore, no legislative, nor executive, body can use said copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against me; and, said "court" fails to obtain "in rem jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I have no "residence" within any geographical jurisdiction, I do not "re-side" within any political jurisdiction, and I am not a magistrate of any federal foreign fictional government, so I have no entourage for any "residency". I keep house within the geographical Missouri Republic, or in whatever Republic I so choose, therefore, there is no "state within a state" of federal jurisdiction, nor is there a political overlay of federal area or postal Zone Improvement Plan, therefore, there is no "federal jurisdiction" over me, nor is there obtainable any "venue jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I recognize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as contraband and gambling tokens, issued, maintained, and controlled within the Private realm of a Private corporation, therefore, I do not own, handle, nor utilize any of them outside the Rule of Necessity, which is a Rule of Common Law, originating well before the establishment of the British Colonies on American soil. Therefore, using only barter, silver, and where absolutely necessary under said ancient rule, Federal Reserve Notes (which are not of substance), no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "substantive jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I am who I say I am, not who, or what (person), any corporate administrator says I am. Since there is no lawful money of exchange available to "pay" any debt, or to "pay" any fines, fees, licenses, penalties, court costs, etc., I cannot be a contemnor, as I am in contempt of nothing. No Private Man, nor corporate body or agency thereof, can demand that I do the impossible. As it is impossible to "pay" for anything, no fictional corporate governmental body can demand that I do the impossible, therefore, no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "legislative or executive jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I am not aware of the existence of any judicial branch of any level of true Republican government nor is any available to me, therefore, no "judicial jurisdiction" is obtainable over me.

 

I am not a U.S. citizen, a United States citizen, a 14th Amendment citizen, nor in any other manner do I "cite-I-Zen". I am, therefore, NOT an enemy of the "state" under any fictional corporate charter regulations and no "corporate jurisdiction" is obtainable over me to condemn me to a category of enemy of any "state".

 

My Constitution is the Holy Writ and I claim only one "color", that being the color of white in the form of a "flag of truce", making known to all that I have no controversy with any. I have no "license" to operate contrary to true law. I have no "permit" to temporarily suspend true law, therefore, no "Admiralty jurisdiction" is obtainable over me.

 

I observe only the True Laws brought forward by the Ancient and Holy Writ, engulfing all established within principles of the Ten Commandments and the later Commandments to love the Lord My God with all my mind, soul, and body; and to, love my neighbor as myself; this is my political establishment, therefore, no fictional political jurisdiction is obtainable over me.

 

I exist only in, and respond only to, my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: Jones. I do not recognize, nor give cognizance to, any fictional corporate entity, nor do I recognize any of their agents. No fictional, quasi-governmental agent/agency can obtain parity with me; therefore, no jurisdiction of agency is obtainable over me.

 

I am in my True Character, a Private Man upon the soil, maintaining only as a private man can, the Right of Soil. I am not a reflection, image, fiction, or other "person". I own and maintain my own "person" for purpose of contracting in the realm of commerce in a lawful and upright manner. My word is my bond when dealing with men. I offer my "signature" when contracting with fictional entities in commerce. Said "signature" (sig=no nature=alive) means no nature, thus, not alive - it is a bond offered into debt/death. For this reason such "scribble" is called "cursive writing", cursed communication with the dead, the fiction. By being responsible for my own "person" under True Law, I exercise my "personal rights" referred to by Thomas Jefferson, and maintain my lawful standing, impeccable under law, I do not yield "Character jurisdiction" over me, or my "persons".

 

Respectfully Presented,

 

by _________________________ agent

John-Quincy: Jones, sui juris

.

 

********************************************************************

 

EXHIBIT Q – Beneficiary to the Original Trust (Correcting the Records)

 

Introductory Statement:

 

The lawful Trust, established within the parameters of Trust Doctrine (see EXHIBIT E), was converted, under unlawful conversion, into a Dead “Person’s” Estate and into that of a Debtor. Under the law, Debt and Death mean the same; Debt means Dead. Various Treaties between the United States and offshore foreign countries often appoint Emissaries and Ambassadors to represent the “death” of the UNITED STATES. Therefore, for all practical purposes, Grantor is deemed to be the Executor of the Estate, rather than the Beneficiary to the Trust.

 

For purposes of this, and associated/annexed documents, Beneficiary means Executor.

 

Certain established parameters of language are:

 

VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits

VALUE IS ACQUIRED: [as per U.C.C. 1-201(44)]

1. With an exchange of “Rights” for a binding commitment to extend credit;

2. As Security for Satisfaction of a pre-existing Claim;

3. By Accepting Delivery to a pre-existing contract for Purchase;

4. Exchange for any consideration to support a contract;

5. An Interest in a thing/issue is given a Transferable Value;

6. Subrogation places a transfer of Rights from the Visible to the Invisible;

 

The “Right” of Authority is through a Birth Certificate issued by the STATE and ACCEPTED FOR VALUE; My acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section 1), is a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee.

 

The President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the President (executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a constitutional oath.

 

“Value” is anything recognized as a pledge or the result of a pledge. The birth certificate is the Resultant Trust of the President’s oath. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would just be evidence of the obligation every Unites States citizen owes to the United States. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would not be evidence of the obligation the United States owes to the people.

 

On the public side, the birth certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S. citizen to be a surety for the United States. On the public side, it is security for the pledge of allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by its citizens.

 

On the private side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a promise made by the President to the people. On the private side, it is security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the People as beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the baby’s physical description that was symbolically delivered by an informant (Mother) to the United States. The setoff resulting from accepting an instrument for value is a distribution from the trust.

 

SUPPORTING NOTES:

 

Remember, when you “accept” an Oath, you consummate an agreement, a contract. When you accept for “value”, you are accepting the consideration the United States has offered to you as evidence of an obligation it has to you as a beneficiary; as well as whatever consideration is offered on the instrument that is being transferred to you through the United States citizen you represent. The United States is humbling itself by asking you to give it assistance. It is applying for credit on every instrument that is issued or transferred for value. If you just receive one of these instruments [even a utility “bill”] without accepting it for value and returning it for value, the presumption is that you intend to pay it. You can pay it with a check, or you can pay it with your prepaid account. It is up to you, but you have to pay it immediately, or you will be deemed to be in dishonor. If you A4V, you can use a distribution from the trust to “pay” the instrument. If you just retain it or argue about the existence or amount of the request, you will pay it with a check, tangible property, or your body.

 

Did the United States offer a birth certificate to you? Did you receive it? Did you accept it for value and return it as a security? If you do not accept it for value and deposit it as an asset, you have voluntarily waived rights to a distribution that is available to you. In a purely commercial system, rights are remedies. Parties to a modern commercial transaction need remedies in the event one of them breaches the terms of the agreement. The birth certificate is a remedy, and represents an antecedent claim you have against the United States. It is also evidence of a preexisting contract. It represents the prepaid account you have available to you for setoffs. Acceptance is an agreement and leads to a binding contract. If you don’t set the terms of that binding contract, the United States will.

 

 

Beneficiary NOTICES Presidential Delegates:

DHS (executive)

Sec of Treasury (legislative)

DOJ (judicial)

Sec of State (administrative)

ALL is in reference to a “Pre-existing Contract,” a Trust Receipt, known as a “Certificate of Live Birth,” to wit:

1. A person (corporate United States) gives value (certificated security = birth

certificate) for rights (to create money on the signature of the man = borrow

from the people) as security (promise not to deny or disparage rights of the people)

for satisfaction (acknowledgement of obligation to people) of a preexisting claim

(beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value (signature on application for birth certificate) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction (distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

3. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (Constitution) for rights (to be recognized internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction (acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay international creditors).

4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value (Article VI oath) for rights (to hold an office) as security (promise to support “this” constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

5. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for rights (to be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to abide by terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a preexisting claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy).

6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

 

Make a note of this – The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath, is the ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate). It is the holder who acquires a security interest in the instrument, IF he takes the instrument for value. It is not the issuer who has the security interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability.

 

Judicial court orders can transfer rights in property, creating a security interest in the title to the subject property, but that is not how it works with an instrument that is issued for value. An order for a judicial court-created security interest is not the type of instrument that a transferee would take for value; but, an order for an executive court-created security interest is a type of instrument that a transferee would take for value. United States courts are not judicial courts; they are territorial courts and were created through Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 by the power granted to the Congress to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” Their orders do not result in security interests through judicial proceedings.

 

To avoid fraud, the instrument has to be issued for value. It gives the transferee (a U.S. citizen) a security interest in the instrument. The only piece of paper a man has the is proof of the security interest he has is the birth certificate. It has no value on the private side, but it does on the public side if he deposits with an appropriate banker, who can then be the man’s securities intermediary, and the man can be the entitlement holder. This is explained in UCC Article 8 in the 500 series.

 

An Order that a securities intermediary deposit the birth certificate makes it a security. It appears that the birth certificate is not an actual security until it passes to a second holder, i.e., from the issuer (State of Missouri) to the Department of Commerce of the United States (the Department of Transportation, Bureau of the Census). The United States uses the certificate until you decide you want to use it. You have the priority right to it as a security for the obligation the United States has to you. It was issued to you.

 

A bond can be given written against the security (bond = birth certificate) he is holding. A promissory note can be written against the bond that is written against the security. Such a promissory note would be an order from the entitlement holder to the securities intermediary to use the security he is maintaining for a specific purpose.

 

UCC 8-102(a)(8) “Entitlement order ” means a notification communicated to a securities intermediary directing transfer or redemption of a financial asset to which the entitlement holder has a security entitlement.

UCC 8-505. Duty of Securities Intermediary with Respect to Payments and Distributions.

(a) a securities intermediary shall take action to obtain a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if:

(1) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary; or

(2) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to attempt to obtain the payment or distribution.

(b) A securities intermediary is obligated to its entitlement holder for a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset if the payment or distribution is received by the securities intermediary.

 

Since securities intermediaries have obligations to entitlement holders, the securities intermediaries must have capacity to act. That is done under the premise that a securities intermediary is declared in the commercial code to be a purchaser for value. The indirect holding system of the United States would not function as expected if the securities intermediary did not have capacity to act. Without the rights of an owner or a purchaser, the securities intermediary would be powerless to act in the intended manner.

 

UCC 8-116 Securities Intermediary as Purchaser For Value

A securities intermediary that receives a financial asset and establishes a security entitlement to the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder is a purchaser for value of the financial asset.

 

UCC 3-303. Value and consideration

A. An instrument is issued or transferred for value if:

3. The instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due;

 

“Giving value” from 1-201 is not the same as “transferring for value” from 3-303. The transferor (issuer) in 303 usually wants to get a valuable consideration back for an instrument he issues for value, and he wants a new contract on which he or the person he represents is the creditor.

 

When an instrument issued for value is received and retained, it is accepted as though the receiver has given it a blank endorsement, and the transfer of liability has been successful. A blank endorsement waives all the defects, and the main defect in an instrument issued for value is that there is no security attached to it. If it were not for the inherent security interest in the instrument itself, the whole project would be fraud.

 

The issuer is not giving value; he is seeking value. The issuer is not giving consideration; he is seeking consideration. These abnormalities can be cured if the transferee gives it a qualified endorsement as a payment and returns the payment for closure of the account. After acceptance through a blank endorsement, the issuer’s consideration is presumed, and the endorser is liable on the instrument. A commitment (implied or express) by the transferee (to take on the liability) through a general acceptance would be a valuable consideration on his part, and would result in a binding contract. He is then obligated on the instrument to make immediate payment.

 

If you cannot tell on the face of the instrument if it is a promise or an order, it can be treated as either. When the payee receives a check, it is a promise. When he negotiates it by endorsing it and delivering to a bank, it is an order.

 

Until someone gives an endorsement, an instrument issued for value is not negotiable. If the transferee makes the instrument negotiable as a security with a blank endorsement, the transferee must pay it. He can give it a qualified endorsement by accepting it for value, to make it a payment. When it is subsequently presented to a third party (banker), it is an order from the maker to the third party to pay it. The instrument issued for value becomes the very payment that pays it. If the transferee gives it a blank endorsement (by his silence) and does not return it with his check, he makes the instrument his promise and also makes the instrument negotiable as a security. Whoever has a right to enforce it can negotiate it. If the transferee has no idea what to do with it, he might inadvertently make it a security and commit himself to pay it. It is his choice. There is a price for ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity; it is lack of knowledge. If an instrument is issued and transferred for value, the person who is the transferee can make it the issuer’s note (promise) and the transferee’s draft (order). The transferee can be the one entitled to enforce the instrument if he gives it a proper endorsement. If he does not, the transferor is the person entitled to enforce the instrument, and he will enforce it.

 

A case designed to seize property of a U.S. citizen is called a penal action. It is not civil, and it is not criminal. It is based on violation of statutes that were implemented to facilitate collections from U.S. citizens to pay the national debt. Libels of information are used to obtain arrest warrants from the clerks of executive courts so the proceeding can be commenced. These are not cases; they are proceedings.

 

When an indictment (true bill), which is actually a libel of information, or other bill is presented to a U.S. citizen by the United States, an obligation on a preexisting claim against the United States (national debt) is being transferred to the transferee (surety - defendant or debtor). The bill is issued for value. The endorser is expected to create the “money,” both for the payment and for the security. The United States wants the U.S. citizen to supply the value. There is no actual security, antecedent claim, or preexisting contract behind it. No money is needed if the transferee treats it as a payment and sends it to the issuer’s banker with a qualified endorsement. This puts the endorser in the driver’s seat and makes him the party entitled to enforce the instrument. On the other hand, no money is needed if the transferee treats it as a security by giving it a blank endorsement and keeping (holding) it. This puts the issuer or his principal in the driver’s seat and entitles the principal to enforce the instrument.

 

Since 1933, the only money in circulation is money of account that is created on demand at the time it is needed to satisfy an immediate need. If a bill is issued with nothing to secure it, it has to be issued for value, because the money to pay it (promise to back it) has not been created. If the transferee receives a bill and does not pay it immediately, he is in default. Some say the reason it cannot be paid is because no check to pay it was included with the bill. The instrument is the check if it is taken as a payment, made negotiable with a proper endorsement, and turned into a draft (issuer’s order). If the transferee accepts it for value and returns it to the issuer’s banker (Secretary of the Treasury) as payment to balance the books and close the account, he is not in default. Since it was issued for value, and transferred for value, it can be accepted for value. To be a holder in due court, the endorser must take (accept) the instrument for value. See 3-302, Holder in due course above.

 

Under Article 3, if an instrument is issued for value, it is also issued for consideration. The issuer either gives the consideration through the instrument, or issues the instrument for value to receive the consideration from the transferee. When an instrument is accepted (taken) for value, it can be returned to pay the bill, and the transaction is finished. All the required bookkeeping entries for an accrual bookkeeping system can be made based on the offer for value and the acceptance for value. This bookkeeping cannot be done if the bill is not returned with an appropriate endorsement though. If the bill is not returned, the bookkeeper has an unbalanced account. All accounts must be closed at the end of the business day in an accrual system. An unbalanced account necessitates entries into the accounts payable and accounts receivable ledgers. If you are the cause of a payable, you are also responsible for the receivable, so your retention of the instrument is deemed to be a blank endorsement. If you do not balance that account, an executive court will do it for you. That usually results in a statutory penalty being applied against you through the U.S. citizen you represent.

 

Much more could be said, but for the sake of brevity, is available upon request.

 

*************************************************

 

  EXHIBIT L – Demand for Exchange of Value

 

31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart A, § 103.11   

(ll) Transmittor. The sender of the first transmittal order in a transmittal of funds. The term transmittor includes an originator, except where the transmittor's financial institution is a financial institution or foreign financial agency other than a bank or foreign bank.

 

(vv) Stored value. Funds or monetary value represented in digital electronics format (whether or not specially encrypted) and stored or capable of storage on electronic media in such a way as to be retrievable and transferable electronically.

 

VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits

 

Claimant has no record or evidence that True and Honest Value and/or related Services has ever been manifested on behalf of Claimant, the Living Man, as per:

 

On March 3, 1851 Congress passed a law called "The Public Liability Statute." As a result, ship (the numbered vessel registered after the “application for a Birth Certificate”) owners (the corporate U.S.S.A.) are now exempt from damages to goods while involved in “commerce;” now, the shippers are responsible for such goods under maritime law, whereby “we” are responsible for any loss which occurs while involved in maritime commerce, which is a gambling policy, which is an “insurance” tontine scheme which “wagers” for profit. All insurance falls under Maritime Law. This was/is a cunning and despicable plot to re-institute a tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve. This is FRAUD.

 

When a “person,” a vessel that may enter commerce, commences action into the credit system (which is really a “Debt” System) of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve) they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint venture is the use of the communal credit (debt), wherein an insurable interest has been created. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax, right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit. Anything that involves Federal Reserve Notes is under Maritime Law because FRNs are an insurance premium.

 

In De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction. Maritime or Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit policy. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and replaced by a wagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law. I could display well over a dozen case cites that explain the use of FRNs is “wagering”, but for space and brevity I will not provide.

 

Remembering that FRNs are Negotiable Instruments, one viable defense against such a Beast as herein discussed is to challenge it at every stage of its offense. The UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii) affirms...  ...one of the other defenses is that the instrument is illegal, when that instrument has been deemed to mean for collecting usury or gambling debts. [Usury equals INTEREST; it is also a gamble]

 

The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15) is bankrupt on the authority of Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an "obligor/grantor" to the Federal Reserve Bank created by the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 265, Chapter 6.

 

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law, not Public Law (see Exhibit K - Interlocking Directorates for full explanation), nor Public Policy, as in reference to a Mr. Lewis which was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. government for damages. The court ruled, "...that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal government could not be held responsible."- Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982).

 

Congress (having exclusive jurisdiction over that ten mile square territory known as Washington, D.C.) agreed in the Federal Reserve Act to give that bank system a paramount and "permanent" (ex-warranto 1913 to 1933) lien on the United States (UCC 9-307(h), the United States is located IN Washington, D.C.) assets and the USER of said bank notes by the authority of 38 Stat. 265, Ch. 6, pp. 266-267. The USER agrees, as a "parole promise," to accept the status as an obligor/grantor and to hypothecate all "his" assets to the United States and thereby to the Federal Reserve which is merely a private corporation, and not "federal." The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a collection agreement as a "USER" fee for the USE of said bank notes (see Interlocking Directorates).

 

I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of Federal Reserve Notes as I cannot consent and do not assent to be an obligor/grantor to said Federal Reserve Bank. I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of said bank notes on the authority of MacLeod v. Hoover, (June 22, 1925) No. 26395, S. Ct. Louisiana; 105 So.Rptr. 305. That court citing U.S. Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheaton 338; 6 L.Ed. 343.

 

Therefore, I refuse for good cause shown, any, and all, corporate and/or governmental agents/agencies and participating affiliates, to induce me to be a tort feasor to the Constitution for The United States of America where at Article 1, Section 10, it states, "No State shall emit bills of credit; make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts."

 

The Congress of the United States of America, by the authority of the Gold Bullion Act of 1985, Public Law 99-185, December 17, 1985, 99 Statutes 1177, has given its intent that all Americans can no longer be forced into an obligor/grantor status to said Federal Reserve Bank Notes.

 

There is no debating the established fact that: Federal Reserve Notes of Debt can be made legal tender for parties of/with a relationship to/with the Federal Government; i.e., those persons who have a nexus/benefit such as; federal government employees, recipient of federal largesse, elected federal office holders, or those who choose to use Federal Reserve Notes, either knowingly or unknowingly, but states and individuals cannot be compelled to use Federal Reserve Notes. [I am an Individual and, in a certain sense, a foreign state.]

 

All Administrators, Agents, and Agencies must take judicial notice of TEXAS CODE (imported under “Equal Footing Doctrine”) Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures, to wit:

 

"All recognizance’s, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the United States only," and,

 

Nevada. NRS 99.010 Dollar, cent and mill to be money of account. The money of account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill. All the accounts in the public offices, other public accounts, and all proceedings in courts, shall be kept and had in conformity with this section," and,

 

Nevada. NRS 99.030 Obligation, judgments or executions payable in legal money. After February 15, 1893, all official bonds and undertakings, and all obligations of debt, judgments or executions stated in terms of dollars and to be paid in money shall be payable in legal money authorized by the Congress of the United States," and,

 

Title 31 USC Section 371:

"The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredth part of a dollar; and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation," and,

 

Title 31 USC Section 311:

"It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money...."

 

THE COINAGE ACT OF 1792 IS STILL CURRENT AND EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT A DOLLAR IS.

 

Title 31 USC § 408 prohibits the redemption of any currency into gold and Title 31 USC § 405(a)-3 prohibits the redemption of any United States currency dollar for dollar into gold and silver. So, the law itself prohibits Affiant from using any “Lawful Money.” And, for a check to be a negotiable instrument, it must contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money and be payable on demand or at a definite time (UCC 3-103 (b) (c)). Thus, neither the bank nor this Affiant is able to comply with the law of money and cannot be held a contemnor. Currency, “Money” as it is commonly known, or thought to be, is "contraband" at statute!!! Affiant has thoroughly invoked “Rule Of Necessity” for any “mistakes” made by way of usage of Federal Reserve Notes.

Also, TITLE 31 USC, § 306.10, 2 - Taxpayer identifying numbers are not required for foreign governments, nonresident aliens not engaged in trade or business within the United States…

 

 

DEEPER FRAUD: SUPPORTING NOTES

"The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152. Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5 Phila. 366. 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879);  Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835), and,

 

"Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars." U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk. And,

 

"Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness and promise of payment." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al, 223 N.Y.S. 481.

 

""Money" does not include treasury notes". Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536, and,

 

"In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling greenbacks or national currency notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And,

 

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part of the circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be considered as money; but, in the strict sense of the term, they are not included therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C. 58,60. And,

 

""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated as such." Johnson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325. And,

 

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment charging that the defendant played at a game of faro for money--cannot be sustained by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And,

 

"The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and violence, and with intent to steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St. 422,426.

 

 

*******************************************************

In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones

Who may be NOTICED at:

C/O 123 West Columbus Street

Somewhere, Missouri Republic

Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

 

 

 

NOTICE OF:

DIPLOMATIC PROTEST

(To be applied in conjunction with NOTICE OF

ADVERSE CLAIM and NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION)

 

Public  international  law  is  proper  law  regarding  unilateral  international  transactions  or  'acts'  concerning  subjects  and  objects  of  international  law:  

 

Note: “Renunciation” as follows means “Expatriation” from de facto oligarchy and “Repatriation” into the de jure Republic.

 

As  international  acts  concerning  the  public  law  succession  to  sovereignties,  the  proper  law  applicable  to  such  dynastic  renunciations  and  their  proper  interpretation  is  public  international  law  concerning  subjects  of  international  law  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  renunciation  happens  to  be  signed:

 

A  renunciation  is  an unilateral  International  transaction  subject  to  public  international  law  as  the  proper  law:  See  Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,  International  Law,  Vol.  I,  Nos.  486 & 488. 

   

Similar  to  treaties,  the  municipal  or  domestic  law  of  the  place  where  a  renunciation  concerning  the  succession  to  subjects  of  public  international  law  is  made  does  not  constitute  the  proper  law  of  that  renunciation:  See  Lord  McNair,  Law  of  Treaties  (1961),  100-101;   Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,  International  Law,  Vol.  I,  Nos. 21 &22;   Article  13  of  The  Declaration  of  Rights  and  Duties  of  States,  9  June  1949  by  the  International  Law  Commission  of  the  United  Nations;   1887  U. S,  Foreign  Relations  751 at  753.    See  also  Articles  27,  46,  and  47  of  the  1969  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties.

 

The  same  is  true  of  any  treaty:   The  proper  law  of  that  treaty  is  public  international  law  rather  than  the  municipal  (domestic)  law  of  the  place  where  the  treaty  was  signed.    Thus,  a  treaty  may  properly  affect  international  rights  in  a  manner  which  might  not  be  recognised  for  private  law  rights  under  the  municipal  law  of  the  place  where  that  treaty  was  signed  --  the  treaty  as  an  international  act  concerning  subjects  and  objects  of  international  law  being  governed  by  public  international  law,  not  the  local  municipal  law.

 

The  validity  of  dynastic  renunciations  referencing  subjects  of  public  international  law  is  subject  only  to  the  peremptory  norms  of  international  law.    See  Lord  McNair,  Law  of  Treaties  (1961),  pp.  213-236.   Brownlie,  Principles  of  Public  International  Law,  p.  417.   See  also  Article  53  of  the  1969  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties.

 

Similar  to  treaties,  the  renunciation  of  rights  to  subjects  of  international  law  are  governed  by  the  canons  of  construction  applicable  to  treaties  and  international  agreements.

 

Survival  of  de  jure  Sovereignty  and  Governments-in-Exile:

 

Under the doctrines  of  public  international  law  a  ruler  who  is  deprived  of the government of his  country  by  either  an  invader  or  revolutionaries  remains  the  legitimate  de  jure  Sovereign  of  that  Country  while  the  de  facto  regime  set  up  by  the  revolutionaries  or  the  invader  is  considered  an  "usurper",  both  constitutionally  and  internationally.   See  Hugo  Grotius  De  jure  belli  ac  pacis,  libri  Tres,  Book  I,  Chapter  4,  Nos.  15-19.

 

Such  de  jure  possession  of  sovereignty  continues  so  long  as  the  de  jure  ruler  or  government  does  not  surrender  his  sovereignty  to  the  usurper.   See  Johann  Wolfgang  Textor,  Synopsis  Juris  Gentium,  Chapter  10,  Nos.  9-11.

 

Upon  the  fall,  dispossession, or  usurpation  of  a  monarchy,  the  de  jure  legal  rights  to  the  succession  of  that  monarchy  may  be  kept  alive  indefinitely  through  the  legal  vehicle  of  making  diplomatic  protests  against  the  usurpation.   See  Emerich  Vattel,  Le  Droit  des  gens,  Book  II,  Chapter  II,  Nos.  145-146.

 

Such  Claimants  are  de  jure  Sovereigns  and,  as  such,  Head  of  the  Government-in-Exile  of  their  usurped  country.

  

Governments-in-Exile  are subjects  of  public  international  law,  and  matters  relating  to  them  are  within  the  scope  of  the  jurisdiction  of  public  international  law  as  the  applicable  proper  law  ...  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place  where  that  Government-in-Exile  may  be  located.   See  Whitman,  Digest  of  International  Law,  Vol.  I,  pp.  921-930.    F. E.  Oppenheim,  "Governments  and  Authorities  in  Exile,"  36  American  Journal  of  International  Law  (1942),  pp.  568-595.   Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,  International  Law,  Vol.  I,  No.  144.

 

The  public  international  law  regarding  the  legal  effect  of  protests  against  the  usurpation  of  sovereignty  applies  to  republics  as  well  as  to  monarchies, democracies, or oligarchies:    The  United  States  of  America  refused  to  recognise  the  1939  Soviet  usurpation  of  the  three  Baltic  Republics  of  Estonia,  Latvia ,  and  Lithuania.    This  facilitated  the  maintenance  of  Governments-in-Exile  of  the  Baltic  Republics  and  the  maintenance  of  embassies  in  Washington, D. C.,  which  persisted  through  the  Cold  War  Era  until  these  countries  managed  to recover  their  independence. 

   

Accordingly,  matters  pertaining  to  de  jure  Governments-in-Exile  are  matters  of  public  international  law.     The  de  jure  sovereignty  of  a  state  which  has  been  usurped  by  a  foreign  conqueror  is  not  extinguished  by  such  usurpation  but  survives  as  long  as  such  sovereignty  is  kept  alive  by  competent  diplomatic  protests.   See  Philip  Marshall  Brown,  "Sovereignty  in  Exile,"  35  American  Journal  of  International  Law  (1941),  p.  666-668.

 

Exiled  Sovereigns  and  Governments  choice  of  law  that  of  usurped  state  to  govern  political  and  public  acts:

 

Under  public  international  law  a  Government-in-Exile,  monarchical  or  republican,  is  deemed  to  have  the  implied  constitutional  power  to  perform  all  normal  acts  of  state   ...   including  those  acts  which  by  its  own  constitution  would  require  the  consent  of  an  organ  of  government,  such  as  a  parliament, the congress, senate, and the higher Supreme Court of the People,  which  are  at  present  suspended  due  to  the  conditions  arising  from  a  usurpation  of  sovereignty.   See  F. E.  Oppenheim,  "Governments  and  Authorities  in  Exile,"  36  American  Journal  of  International  Law  (1942),  pp.  568  at  581-582.

 

In  such  cases  the  choice  of  law  by  the  parties  making  the  renunciation  of  dynastic  rights  concerning  sovereignties  is  the  public  law  of  that  former  State  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  renunciation  was  signed.

  

Choice  of  law  is  very  common  in  private  law  commercial  law  contracts:   A  grain  supplier  located  in  Argentina  shipping  wheat  to  a  purchaser  in  Russia  upon  a  Liberian  ship  will  commonly  contract  that  the  law  relating  to  the  shipment  of  the  wheat  will  be  British  law  (because British  shipping  law  has  been  so  well interpreted)  even  though  neither  the  buyer,  seller  or  the  shipper  has  any  'contact'  with  the  United  Kingdom.  In  all  such  cases  courts  will  apply  the  law  of  choice  as  the  substantive  law  governing  that  contract  as  the  proper  law  applicable  to  that  contract  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  contract  was  signed,  the  goods  were delivered,  or  the  nationality  of  the  vessel  making  delivery.

 

Thus,  if  a  Government-in-Exile  located  abroad  (say  the  Governments-in-Exile  of  one  of  the  three  Baltic  Republics  during  the  Cold  War  Era)  makes  a  public  law  act  concerning  its  former  State  which  has  been  usurped  (as  were  the  three  Baltic  Republics  by  the  Soviet  Union),  the  legal  validity  of  the  acts  of  that  Government-in-Exile  are  governed  by  the  public  or  constitutional  law  of  that  usurped  State  rather  than  by  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  Government-in-Exile  happens  to  be  located. 

 

Survival of private law rights acquired under former sovereign:

The  fall,  revolution,  or  usurpation  of  a  former  government  or  state  brings  into  play  the  international  law  of  state  succession  to  govern  resulting  legal  affairs:    Briefly,  within  the  usurped  State  the  public  law  of  the  former  sovereign  governing  constitutional  and  public institutional  matters  must,  of  necessity,  fall.    However,  the  statutory  law  of  the  former  Sovereign  survives  to  govern  private  legal  rights  acquired  or  'vested'  under  such  statutory  law  of  the  former  Sovereign.    As  'vested'  or  acquired  private  law  legal  rights,   such  survive  the  change  or  succession  of  sovereign.    Such  'vested'  private  law  legal  rights  must  be  recognised  by  the  new  or  usurping  sovereign.

 

The  general  proposition  of  public  international  law  is  that  the  municipal  law  of  a  country  is  not  changed  by  a  change  of  sovereignty.    Private  law  rights  acquired  or  'vesting'  under  the  law  of  the  former  sovereign  remain  valid  after  state  succession  and  continue  to  be  governed  by  the  law  of  the  former  Sovereign  applicable  at  the  time  when  such  private  law  rights  originally  'vested'  or  were  acquired   ...   notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  former  Sovereign  has  been  de  facto  replaced.

  

In  support  of  this  proposition  see  the  decisions  of  The  Hague  "World  Court,  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  in  the  case  of  the  German  Settlers  in  Poland,  P.C.I.J.,  Series  B,  No. 6, Advisory  Opinion  No.  8,  Annual  Digest,  1923-1924,  Case  No.  37.;  Sopron-Koszeg  Local  Railway  Company  Case,  Lega  of  Nations,  Official  Journal,  1929,  p.  1359;  American  Journal  of  International  law,  Vol.  XXIV  (1930)  pp.  164-174;  Annual  Digest,  1929-1930,  Case  No.  34;   E.  Thalheimer  v.  Yugoslav  State  before  the  Hungarian-Yugoslav  Mixed  Arbitral  Tribunal  on  6  Sept  1928,  Recueil,  VIII,  p.  579,  Annual  Digest,  1927-1928,  Case  no.  60;   State  Succession  (Notarial  Act)  Case,  before  the  Austrian  Supreme  Court  in  Civil  Matters  decided  13  May  1919,  Annual  Digest,  1919-1922,  Case  No.  40;   Occupation  of  Crete  Case,  the  Greek  Court  of  Cassation,  Annual  Digest,  1925-1926,  Case  No.  69;   Heirs  of  the  Prince  Mohammed  Selim  v.  The  Government  of  Palestine,,  Annual  Digest  1935-1937,  Case  No.  39;   Mihan  Singh  v.  the  Sub-Divisional  Canal  Officer,  Annual  Digest,  1954,  pp.  64-66;   Supreme Court of India  in  Virendra  Singh  v.,  State  of  Uttar  Pardesh,   Annual  Digest,  1955,  p.  131.

 

Given  the  many  separate  state  successions  involved  in  the  formation  of  the  United  States  between  Great  Britain,  France,  Spain,  the  Republic  of  Texas,  and  Hawaii,  this  doctrine  is  also  affirmed  in the  following  decisions  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  United  States  v.  Perchman,  7  Pet.  51,  86-87  (1830);  United  States  v.  Chavez,  159  U. S.  453  (1895);  Brownsville  v.  Cavazos,  100  U. S.  138,  25  L. Ed  574  (1879);  United  States  v.  Perot,  98  U. S.  428  (1879);  Fremont  v.  United  States  17  How.  542,  58 U. S.  241  (1854);   United  States  v.  Fullard-Leo,  331  U. S.  256  (1946)  Society for the Propagation of the Gospel  v.  Town  of  New  Haven,  8  Wheat.  464,  at  493  (1823);   Delassus  v.  United  States,  9  Pet.  117  at  133;  United  States  v.  the  Heirs  of  Clarke  and  Atkinson,  16  Pet.  228,  at  232;   Dent  v.  Emmeger,  14  Wall.  308  at  312  (1871);  Soulard  v.  United  States,  4  Pert.  511  at  512  (1830);  Terrett  v.  Taylor  9  Cranch  43  at  50  (1815);Ely  v.  the  United  Stated,  171  U. S.  220  at  223;   Shapleig  v.  Mier,  299  U. S. 468  at  470  (1937);

 

The  same  doctrine  of  public  international  law  re  complete  survival  of  'vested'  private  law  rights  upon  state  succession  has  also  been  affirmed  in  the  following  decision  of  American  State  courts  in   Miller  v.  Letzerich,  49  Sw2d  404,  85  A.L.R.  451  (Texas,  1932);  Harris  et  al.  v.  O'Conner,  185  Sw2d  993  (Texas,  2944);   Manry  v.  Robison  et  al,  56  Sw2d  438  at  444;  122  Tex.  213  (1932);   Pendery  v.  Panhandle  Refining  Co,  169  SW2d 766;   Maricopa  County  Municipal  Water  Conservation  District  No, 1  v.  Southwest  Cotton  Co,  4  P2d  369  (1931);   Vanderslice  v.  Hanks,  3  California  27  at  37-38  (1852);   State  v.  Valmont  Plantations,  346  S.W.2d  853  (Texas,  1961);   State  v.  Balli,  190  S.W.2d  71  at  99  (Texas, 1945);   Luttes  v.  State,  289  S.W. 2d 357  (Texas  1956)  and  324  S.W,. 2d  167 at 176.

 

The invocation of  the Treaty of Peace with verbiage more understandable at: Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793), clearly specifies that “We The People” are not “Subjects”, but, rather Sovereigns without subjects.

 

The following is a compilation of various case cites with objective to make more explicit the meaning of this DIPLOMATIC PROTEST: [bolding, underlining, etc. added] SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS – ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY OF PARIS 1884

 

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course* of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371. [*See footnote – Holder In Due Course Notes]

 

“Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violations.” Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93

 

"History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.

 

Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.”

Afroyim v Rusk, 387 US 253; 87 S.Ct. 1660. “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.”

The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is an established fact, as well as a respected and valid concept.

"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection." Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)

Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

 

A vast assortment of supportive reference material is available, however, I feel I have displayed a sufficient array for confirmation and clarity of my Claims.

 

The “Doctrine Of Contribution” applies explicitly to Affiant, for I: a man called John-Quincy: of the family of Jones: holding the office of the people: adhere to the Ten Commandments: with full liability: in and for the judicial-district: Douglas: the county; country of Missouri: under the authority of the one living deity: King of kings, and Lord of lords: Yahweh: John-Quincy: Jones - Exiled Sovereign.

 

*****************************************************

 

 

INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES

A/K/A INTERLOCKING EQUITY TIES

to establish parameters of fiduciaries

 

The U.S. Feral Government (not a typo) is out of control!!

 

Thomas Jefferson said in 1821:  “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

 

President Theodore Roosevelt 1906: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” 

 

President Woodrow Wilson: "Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

 

Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it."

  

Harry S. Truman: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

 

Luke 11:46 “Woe unto you also, you lawyers; for you lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

 

Luke 11:52 “Woe unto you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge: you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered.”

 

Oligarchy: Government by a few; those making up such a government – lawyers!

 

May I remind you that - failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, etc...) is a Criminal Offense?

 

To simplify issues and bring clarity concerning duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the offending corporate STATE OF MISSOURI officials, we present the following Interlocking Directorates:

 

1. The first "connection" from the highest, and most potent, position is:

 

a. 77 Stat. 630-631, P.L. 88-243 (1963) and P.L. 88-244 (1963) introduces and "makes law" providing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as Private Law enacted for the municipal District of Columbia and the United States (federal government). These laws/actions were/are expressly in force and effect on citizens of the federal government. PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630 is "AN ACT To enact the Uniform Commercial Code for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." This is where the uniform commercial code enters as the implied "law of the land." [SEE also, H.J. Res 778, December 10, 1963, 77 Stat 775]

 

"It is well settled that "United States" et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871, under the name "District of Columbia"". 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62

 

Heritage Dictionary: Co·lum·bi·a (k…-l¾m“b¶-…) n. The United States.

 

For sake of simplicity, a "Public Law", as referenced, P.L. 88-244, is Private Law only meant for private corporate citizens, not We The People.

 

(i) "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 AmJur 12, p.28

 

(ii) A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 AmJur 33, pgs. 58, 59.

 

(iii) Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 AmJur 35, p. 60.

 

 (iv) In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979).

 

(v) The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly 133 U.S. 21 (1890).

 

b. It is all private law, not International law (but, may be referred to as Private International Law), and it is owned by the same people that own public law 88-243 (1968). The UCC was written and is owned by UNIDROIT. It is in the Vatican (actually, it is only about one hundred yards from the "Holy See").

 

(i) To properly address "public law", one must understand that it is "Private Corporate Charter" that owns the "P.L." and it is all "statutory". Public Law was converted to Public Policy in 1938 (policy = political = police). All private corporations, including governments, are under "public policy" and are to deal only with other corporations, as exemplified herein.

 

(ii) The Private Rights of Private Man is not affected by public law, public policy, private law, or anything else, as long as, Private Man does not harm another Private Man. He is not "statutory", but Lawful.

A. "We the people have discharged any debt which may be said to exist or owed to the state/government.  The governments are, presumably, indebted continually to the people, because the people [the sovereigns] presumably assented to the 1878 creation of the government corporation and because we suffer its continued existence.  The continued debt owed to the people is discharged only as it continues not to violate our private rights, and when government fails in its duty to provide protection-discharge its debt to the people, it is an abandonment [delictual fault] of any and all power, authority or vestige of sovereignty which it may have otherwise possessed, and the laws remain the same, the sovereignty reverting to the people whence it came." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).

B. "All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private rights Wynhammer v. People, (13 NY 378), which duty is a debt owed to its creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual.  No matter what the de facto government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised individual owes nothing to the government." (Emphasis mine) Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

 

(iii) Public means: of, concerning, or affecting the common unity of the people, the Assemblage of Private Man.

 

(iv) Private means: not available for public use, control, or participation, belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government (remember, as a corporation, the gubm't becomes no more than any other corporate "person"), not holding an official or public position.  - If you're still confused, go back to 1. b. above and 2. & 4.e. below.

 

(v) "The entire taxing and monetary systems are, hereby, placed under the U.C.C." The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, also see: Public Law 89-719, Legis. Hist., pg 3722, C.R.S. 5-1-106, U.S. V. Conrad Pub. Co., 589 F.2d 949 (1978) - being commercial in nature of admiralty Jurisdiction. [Ratification Doctrine]

 

(vi) NOTE: Concerning “private” v. “public” via “Civil” Law - The civil law tradition makes a sharp distinction between private and public law. Private law includes the rules governing civil and commercial relationships such as marriage, divorce, and contractual agreements. Public law consists of matters that concern the government: constitutional law, criminal law, and administrative law. In many countries with civil law systems, two sets of courts exist—those that hear public law cases and those that address matters of private law. Remember, Civil Law is opposed to Common Law.

 

(vii) On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "common law," in the Federal Government, "THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS" (See: Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188).

(viii) The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. 

"This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY." (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17; also see, Federalist Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.) [SEE 1 (a) above.]

 

c. The U.S. pays $260,000 per year to UNIDROIT for the use of the copyrighted UCC. The International Registry is the private law of UNIDROIT.

 

d. The Vatican Bank had owned Continental Bank, Chicago, whose sole stockholder was Walter Commings, Jr, the Chief Judge of 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

e. Chicago Board of Trade is owned by a Judge.

 

f. All courts in the United States (corporate zone) are "for profit" corporations and listed in Dunn and Bradstreet under the heading, "Also Trades As:"

 

(i) There is no debate that the free States of the Union once existed upon North American soil. There is no debate that the People obtained the Rights of the King as Sovereigns and Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty. There is no debate that said States of the Union, if extant, are well hidden and non-accessible and the Sovereign People are now draped with a blackened cloak of deceit, trickery, and true identity theft by those known as "persons" of corporate nature, legal fictions, creatures of pretense in mind only.

 

(ii) How do "they" turn a bona-fide Republic State of the Union back into a "territory" of the United States?

 

(A) On the political “side“, this is how, "…on the authority of the United States Supreme Court, it is the complete subjugation [to bring under control; conquer; to make subservient; enslave] of any political unit to the federal government of the United States that makes a subdivision a territory". Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486; also The Coquitlam v. United States, 163 U.S. 346. [Boys and girls, can we all say U.S.D.C.?]

 

Under the "Buck Act," 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this "Federal area," and in Sec. 110(d): The term "State" includes any territory or possession of the United States. The Buck act affects the actions of all federal departments within the 50 states. There in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105, the federal "State" is defined “(also known as), "The State of xxxxxxx." 

 

The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal "State (of) [name of state] within a state."  We have numerous references to this.

 Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O'Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440

 

Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28 U.S.C. § 30020(15)].  The States are sub-corporations of the Fed, this aforementioned Corporation.  [See 1934, State Compact Act; Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 101].

 

[Primary laws extended to Territories] by the United States was the Customs Act of July 27, 1868 [15 Stat.L. 240; Rev. Stat. of 1873-1874, 2^nd ed. Secs. 1954-1976, page 342], extending over the Territory the laws of the United States with reference to customs, commerce and navigation, and constituting it a customs collection district.  Under this act important powers of regulation were conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

(B) On the religious “side”, this is how, “EXECUTIVE ORDER 13397 - Church as a Governmental Agency”

 

Gone with the stroke of a pen, as of Mach 07, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security will now utilize our nations non-profit churches as one of the federal government's primary spying agencies. Is any further comment necessary?

 

(C) But, how can “they” have access to our everyday functions to obtain control over the innocent maneuvers we must negotiate daily?

 

“But, in fact and in law, such statutes are intended to be applied to those who are here as "residents" in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.” United States v United Mine Workers of America, (1947) 67 S.Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258.

 

22 USC Sec. 1621 -EXPCITE- TITLE 22 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I -HEAD- Sec. 1621. Definitions

-STATUTE- For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term 'person' shall include an individual, partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United States.

Clarity must be brought to the subject of “State.” A vast difference exists between a fiction, fable, legal entity, corporation of “some body politic” and the non-fiction, real and true, body of Christians also known as a “state.” The following is placed directly below to bring clarity to such:

The State is a person, and possesses as its property one territory. As this one civil person consists of all the citizens, so its property consists of all the individual property of the citizens. It is una persona, unicum patrimonium. This unity of the person and property of the state is expressed by the Common Law maxim, that all lands were originally granted out by the sovereign [Yahweh, God, our Father, through His Son, Yahshua, the Christ], and are therefore holden, either mediately or immediately, in fee. In apprehension of [Christian and Biblical] law, the [Christian] state holds the soil of the whole territory as one estate [in Christ].

 

(D) And, aren’t “they”, the feral government, in reality “NON EXISTANT”?

 

Absolutely, so, let's look at United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33. - "It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.  H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only."...

(E) How is the “United States” usurping their “alleged” authority?

 

In "the Court's" “Statement of Venue” (scilicet, ss) you may find written or indicated that your “Plaintiff” is the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.  Though this may appear that this may be an attempt to identify The United States of America, it is fatally flawed and is, in nature, fact, and law, an attempted enlargement, by means of fictions, of your non-existent granted powers and authorities.  In a landmark, time honored, never disputed, and still distinguished case we learn:

 

“The proper jurisdiction of the courts of Common Law is of things done within the bodies of counties, and its further enlargements, by means of fictions, can be considered only as ingenious subterfuges and devices, to amplify their powers.”

 

Justice Story; 1815 De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; 7 Fed. Cas. 418; Case No. 1,776 (Reaffirmed 78 U.S. 1 to 396 U.S. 215).

 

We are bringing to your attention, at this time, the second part of this indisputable political doctrine.  In order to clarify this statement, we have taken the liberty of noticing synonyms to those words that may not be easily understood:

 

(Common-Language Clarification) “and its further enlargements (expansions), by means of fictions (imaginary/legal assumptions), can be considered only as ingenious (clever) subterfuges (concealments) and devices (schemes), to amplify (exaggerate) their powers.”

 

(iii) Whoever said the “police” are there to protect and to serve? I said that; they’re here to protect the political establishment from knowledgeable people and to “serve” the public in the same way that a farmer gets his cow “serviced” to produce another calf. Are “they” managing the herd? You bet they are.

23 CFR PART 1250 - 40% TO

POLITICAL SUBDIVISION PARTICIPATION IN STATE

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

40% Benefit to Local-Reg

Part 1250 gives 40 percent benefit to local police action through political subdivision participation in State highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402 (b)(1)(C). 1250.4(b) When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended by a political subdivision, such expenditures are clearly part of the local share. [Note: previous to this it was stated that the Federal funds dispersed are at least 40%.] Well, so much for “un-biased” police.

 

(iv) The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v Devito, 686 F2d 616.

 

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.:  373 US 262 (1962):

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

 

Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):

"Failure  to  obey  the  command  of  a  police  officer  constitutes  a traditional  form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution." 

 

g. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)

 

h. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493).

 

i. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493).

 

j. The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44).

 

k. America is a British Colony. (the UNITED STATES is a CORPORATION, not a land mass, and it existed before the revolutionary war and the British troops did not leave until 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c. v. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.).

 

28 USC 3002(15)(A): "United States" means a Federal corporation.

 

l. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213). The “United States” or District of Columbia is owned by the Vatican Bank, lock stock and barrel, according to Tupper Saussey’s archival research.

 

m. 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209); see also Public Law 88-243 and 88-244 (December 1963).

 

n. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80). Actually, it was the Rothschild banks - the Rothschild banks of England financed the North, - the Rothschild banks of France financed the South. At that time, the King of England was also the King of France.

 

o. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that "New York City was the capital of the World" and he was correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)).

 

p. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816).

 

SEE: Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of the United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that the "Agreement" regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record - Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.

 

q. The IRS is an Agency of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) not the U.S. Government. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.). See also: Bretton Woods Agreement, as amended.

 

r. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United States government, even though the "US Government" held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang, 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d 1239) ["They are also corportions.]

 

s. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2)).

 

t. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN. (Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)

 

u. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.).

 

v. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)

 

w. The U.S. has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654).

 

x. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

 

y. There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178).

 

(i) And, do the “courts” enforce laws, or codes? Answer: Code is supreme. “Where both the code and general principles are available, the former should always be considered and applied if applicable.  By legislative declaration the code is the law, and if general principles appear inconsistent, they must be considered displaced under AS 45.05.006.  Moreover, even where inconsistency does not exist, the code must be regarded as supreme; general principles even when consistent with the code are merely supplementary“. Prince v. LeVan, 486 P.2d 959, 9 UCC Rep.Serv. 367 (1971).  Kelly v. Miller, 575 P.2d 1221, 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 632 (1978)

 

(ii) But, are “judicial” courts necessary? Answer: The particular need for making the judiciary independent was elaborately pointed out by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 78, from which we excerpt the following:

 

"The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment." WE HAVE NOT HAD THIS BALANCE OF POWER FOR A VERY LONG TIME!!

 

(iii) The “ideal” of checks and balances within government structure have long been a thing of the past.

 

The Reconstruction Acts took away the Lawful Standing, the Lawful Capacity, from the Citizens and changed their Lawful Standing to “Legal Status”, from ELECTORS in a THREE BRANCH GOVERNMENT as they were in Original Jurisdiction, to REGISTERED VOTERS in a TWO BRANCH GOVERNMENT.

 

Want proof? Go to your local City Clerk and ask for a CERTIFIED COPY of your City Charter in any State, or your local County Clerk for a CERTIFIED COPY of your County Charter in any State. You will discover that ALL cities and counties in your State have only two branches, the Executive and Legislative. There is no Judicial Branch!! The Judicial Districts were all abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34^th Congress.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1860, reviewing the Act of the 34^th Congress, ordered ALL the States in existence at that time to close down all the Court’s of law and all courts complied in 1860. None of the Court’s of any State are created by the Constitution of their State.

 

Every Court, from top to bottom, the justice of the peace courts, the police courts, the municipal courts, the district courts and the circuit courts are ALL Statutory Courts created by Statutes which were enacted by the Legislature and in fact, and law, merely Administrative Agencies and only have the authority conferred by Statute.

 

z. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178).

 

(i) Modes of enforcement are erratic and arbitrary, a ground for prosecution is anybody's guess, and the operation in the law is shrouded in mystery. In most any issue at hand we might suggest the following:

 

"This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242."

 

“When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and that the improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say the least, not happy.  More than once have judges of a court been indirectly reminded that they too are taxpayers.

 

No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this commonwealth the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low.  And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his returns.” Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167 (1965).

 

(ii) Dear Friends: this all leads to domestic terrorism! Please follow:

 

18 USC 2331. - Definitions. As used in this chapter -

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

 

aa. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502).

 

bb. We (as corporate entities) own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our children.(Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481).

 

cc. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037).

 

dd. You (as corporate entities) can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 14 Georgia 438, 520) That's why I rely on YOUR sworn Oath to keep my Rights as "secured by the Constitution".

 

ee. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

 

However, please be mindful that, it is not until you get to Article 10 (PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630) - Construction with other laws that you begin to see that the laws of the Republic were left in place in Section 28:10-104; Laws not repealed. And, remember, in UCC 1-103.6 it clearly states that all is to be done in accordance with the Common Law, so, remedy is available, although hidden. This is how "they" brought in all of the Uniform Laws through D. C. and because all of the states are subdivisions with interlocking directorates, all are simply municipal corporations of D.C., and the D.C. code applies - if you are a corporation.

 

Ahhh, but, how does the “court system” see this? Many illustrations could be included, but, this document does not have room. I will take only the space for one small example:

 

In 1976 our court system (what was left of it) was flushed away. Senate Bill 94-204 deals with the court system and Senate Bill 94-381 deals with Public Law. These solidified changes in all operations of law by utilizing the words "construe and construct". Slight deviations transfer meaning of words to fit their dolus agenda, such as, "in" changed to "at", "at law" v. "in law".

 

Lawyers, judges, and the "court system" are now allowed to change any word they wish to mean any thing they want. The "law" now means whatever they choose it to mean. It is no longer a court of "law", but a court of "construe and construct".

 

Lawyers are the guilty culprits that make these devious changes. Often their answers will reflect such changes. They intentionally misquote past cases, or other issues, as facts by making such changes. Illegal? Not according to the above Senate Bills.

 

So, be aware, "they" can construe "their" copyrighted laws any way they wish to fit the situation for their own betterment; and, you have no say about it. Can you use the same copyrighted codes, laws, statutes, and regulations against them? Not unless you have a license from the BAR. You will be in violation of copyright infringement and punishment is mandatory.

 

Learn this - there is NO LAW in this nation, or the world, for that matter. There is ONLY contract law. And, the only Bill of Rights the "courts" are required to take cognizance of is the 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, and 16^th. Fair nuff?

 

Consider the following fact of “law”, which shall be reiterated further in this document: "Judicial Notice" was commanded in the case of Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, where the Supreme Court ruled that particular case was the last time it would address "official definitions" of the term "United States", affirming that there are two (2) distinctly different United States with two (2) opposite forms of governments, both having the same congress. [“Opposite” means opposing!!]

 

2. All governments, and every agency thereof, are corporations, obtaining any jurisdictions from their Charters, as per:

Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People

– Supreme Court of the United States 1795

a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States 1795 -----; and,

 

b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities (remember, although all government agents and employees are 14th Amendment citizens, this Sovereign is not);

 

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

 

c. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773, "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"", and,

 

d. "This State" and "this county" and all "municipalities" are controlled by 42 USC

 

IT IS ALL IN TITLE 42, SECTION 3711 THROUGH 3796,

This shows that every agency involved in criminal cases receives Feral funds.

Find the State code and you should find a State Agency that compares to the Coordinating Council. These are not the only agencies that grant federal funds into the States.  This is only the beginning:

 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 4 PARTS:

OFFICE OF JUSTICE  PROGRAMS

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

 

ALL OF THESE 4 DEPT. ARE HEADED BY AN ASSISTANT U.S. AG. WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.  HOW IS THAT FOR A MILITARY SET UP?

 

Criminal justice system has ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF:

(a) State highway patrol, county sheriff, municipal and township police, and all other enforcement agencies.  

(b)  the court of appeals, courts of common pleas, municipal courts, county courts, and mayor’s courts when dealing with criminal cases.  

(C)  prosecuting attorneys, city directors of law,  jails and on and on.

 

Title 42 USC sec. 3791(a)  States means any State of the US, DC, commonwealth Puerto Rico, Units of Local Government means any city, county, township, parish, village or other general purpose subdivision of a State.

 

Title 42 sec. 3732 reads

The State Coordinating Council has a Director appointed by the Governor. His duties are full federal control over the States. Start to understand who you are really up against. Find the flow of money.

 

Title 42 sec. 3732 reads: 

(a) There is established within the Dept. of Justice, under the general authority of the AG, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (Bureau)

(b) The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, and with the advice and consent of the Senate - - - The Director shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau.   The Director shall report to the AG, through the Asst. AG

WOULD THIS NOT LEAD YOU TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS?

(1) The name, and address of the Director per Title 42 @ 3732

(2)  Certified copy of Oath

(3)   Certified copy of bond or insurance that covers his actions

(4)  Copy of contracts awarded that award money to the State

(5)  The reports the AG made that reflect that money

Once you establish that the courts, prosecutors, public defenders, auto registration, are all claiming federal money for their operations then they commit fraud in the procedures they use, it is actionable under FALSE CLAIMS ACT.

 

For some interesting reading get a copy of Title 4 USC and take careful notice of the section "States".

Also, Term “state” as used in rules providing when a state may appeal in a criminal case is all inclusive and intended to include not only the state but its political subdivisions, counties and cities. Spokane County v. Gifford, 9 Wash.App. 541, 513 P.2d 301, 302. Federal Government is a “state” bound by all of provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Enright v. U. S., D.C.N.Y., 437 F.Supp, 580 581.

Foreign State. A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered “foreign” to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. ...  

 

3. An issue declared, but not rebutted, stands as Truth in Law (thus, this proper rebuttal):

 

a. All "U.S. citizens" were classified as "Enemies of the State" as made more explicit in our "EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", in which we demonstrated that, pursuant to Public Law 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976), the state of national emergency has been officially terminated by the United States Congress, and accordingly, any and all authorities which might have permitted Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction ("Star Chambers") to exist in American federal courts were also effectively terminated by said Public Law [See 42 U.S.C. 1986], and explicitly brought forward in EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", with an additional eight (8) Points. For brevity, only one point will be displayed:

 

Point 063 A. Affiant has no record or evidence to indicate that Affiant is a combatant enemy of the State, or that Affiant is a belligerent of the government, as per; article by Chuck Morse,  “Is the ‘National Emergency of FDR’ Still In Place?” that: “This was a classic example of sleight of hand. In fact, Congress exempted all laws, based on the emergency of 1933 that were already in place. Rather than being based on the authority of the President under a ‘national emergency’ these federal laws have now been codified as a permanent part of the U.S. Federal Code. Included among the codified laws would be Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which classifies the American citizen as an enemy of the government.” Therefore, although the “national emergency” technically ended on September 14, 1976, when the 93rd Congress passed H.R. 3884, the National Emergencies Termination Act (50 USC 1601, Public Law 94-412), because the last paragraph said that it didn’t apply to any “authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended,” the classification of a United States citizen still stands as enemy of the government, Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant should maintain any association with the label, definition, or designation of a US citizen, or any similar appellation.

 

b. Under Act of Congress, May 31, 1878, c. 146, 20 Stat. 87, 31 U.S.C.A. § 404, which enacts that notes of the United States, issued during the war of the Rebellion, under acts of congress declared them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, and since the close of the war redeemed and paid in gold coin at the treasury, shall be reissued and kept in circulation, is constitutional, and notes so reissued are a legal tender.

 

This idea supports that, under emergency - the War of Rebellion (Civil War), the printing of Notes is Constitutional. Of course in the actual theater of war, the Constitution is suspended, and some of the Executive Orders of the War Between the States are still in full force and effect.

 

So, bear in mind that: 

(1) the "Emergency War Powers Act" is in full force and effect; and,

(2) though "notes" are not Lawful Money, they are declared "legal tender"; and,

(3) all U.S. citizens are declared as "enemies of the government"; and,

(4) all "legal tender" (notes of the Federal Reserve) is defined as US currency.                               

 

4. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., page 1420, "A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public authority, and the other by mere private persons."

 

a. We have determined that a "mixed war" is a "Commercial War"; and, a "public authority" exercises "Private Law"; to the benefit of corporate strategy, which is not unlawful if not exercised against a "Private Person", or "Private Man".

 

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

 

In Noah Webster's dictionaries, pre 1969, in the abbreviation section you will find U.S.C. defined as United States of Colombia. And, then in the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of Columbia you will find: Columbia, the United States. This notation is to "de-fuse" any assumption/presumption that this Affiant is "subject to", or a "citizen of" any such extension/trespass against the mind, will, and conscience of Affiant, within, or without, the United States, onshore, or offshore.

 

c. Why were the post offices in Washington, D.C. placed under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury???

 

72d Congress Sess. II CHS. 160-162

MARCH 1, 1933

[CHAPTER 162]

March 1, 1933 [H.R. 14401.]

[Public, No. 405.]

Washington City post office.

Jurisdiction, etc. of, placed under the Secretary of the Treasury.

Vol. 30 P. 614.

U.S.C., p. 1306

AN ACT

To provide for placing the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Washington City post office in the Secretary of the Treasury. [and, every post office with "zip" codes]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40, sec. 285), is hereby amended to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the Washington City post office and the additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and control.

Approved, March 1, 1933.

 

d. The U.S. Attorney General is the "permanent member" to the Secretariat of the Interpol Operation, and the Secretary of Treasury the "alternate permanent member." Under Article 30 of the "Constitution and General Regulation of Interpol, "22 USC 263(a), the agents are required to renounce their allegiance to their respective countries and expatriate. Consequently, ALL "public servants," officials, Congressmen politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement personnel, the States and their various agencies, are express agents of the Foreign Principals who have bankrupted and stolen the United States (of America) through the paper money banking swindle and other frauds and treacheries. And, why is the Secretary of the Treasury also known as the US Governor for the International Monetary Fund?

 

e. And, how are all the "States" linked to the Feral Gubm't?

 

(i) All states in the Union were reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, hence creating a new (and, different/alternate) union of American STATES. UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, 3002(15)(A), basically reiterates that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. What was not said in 1871, but was implicit, was what is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(B) & (C): That all departments of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION are part of the corporation. The "Corporation" and its' subsidiaries have suffered at least three bankruptcies.

 

Much later (Conference of Governors, 1945) the legal fictions called "State of YOUR STATE" confirmed and "pledged" what was not theirs to pledge, the sweat, labor, engineering, technology, and future children of We The People, to support the indebted legal fiction, "UNITED STATES". The full "Changing of the Guard" (state name change status) was accomplished in, I think, 1968.

 

(ii) The other united States is the Continental united States. This is the country founded by the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States (actually, Canada was part of the original charter). The original, organic Constitution had no title, the Preamble was the "title". When the "constitution" was used as the corporate charter for the Act of February 21, 1781, it was given a "title", - Constitution of the United States of America, and that IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, as in the NAME of a vessel. Please note the distinct difference and meaning in the two words "of" and "for". Of means something belongs to something, or someone, else - "Constitution of (belonging to, possession) the United States of America", v. "Constitution for (the seating of a Tribunal, seating of judgment) the United States of America".

 

So, what difference does it make if they changed one tiny little word? You'd better learn. If you don't want to learn, go back to sleep - I apologize whenever I disturb any of the "pajama people".

 

f. And, how did the International Bankers become the "receivers in bankruptcy", but first, remember, the only ones put at risk are the ones that turned in their gold to the "Securities Intermediaries! (So, how can "they" rightly claim the position of "receivers of the bankruptcy"??)

 

(i) Please observe the "sleight of hand" as the International Bankers slip in to "assume" the position of "Creditor", without contributing any money, whatsoever; pay special attention to the fact that there is a "statutory" pledge and they assumed position as receiver:

 

Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.

 

It says, “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me], as “the net public debt”.

 

Title 18 Sect. 8 defines ''obligation of the United States'' to include……“ all certificates of indebtedness …..drawn upon authorized officers of the United States issued under any Act of Congress,” which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, And of course includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of the UNITED STATES.

 

(ii) We must get more specific to unravel the threads of this web of deceit. In the 14th Amendment (which all "public" gubm't employees are party to) it plainly states:

 

The validity of the public debt...  ...shall not be questioned, and further states, “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [non-14th Amendment citizens], as “the NET public debt.”  

 

So, "public debt" is the charges against me by the several and many corporations that "service" me (government and non-government, but all corporate), and the "net public debt" is the interest due or accrued, which is to be returned to the source, (me) as Equity for my losses incurred by supporting the Beast (turning in the Lawful Money - Gold). Referenced to 14th Amendment, Section 4.

 

I must reiterate that it is the 14th Amendment citizen and the Treasury Department that is not to question "The validity of the public debt..."  (...shall not be questioned).

 

(iii) The question of "Communal Debt" arises and must be answered to clarify the issues. The Communal Debt was, and is, the debt of the Corporation(s), in particular, governments and the expense of running the same. Since the de jure governments are in position, but no offices are filled, there can be no expenses for the same. The de facto institutions of government have no "negative" expenses, as they hire only qualified pirates and thieves.

 

(iv) The next question that must be addressed is that of "Communal Credit". Understand this, there was, and is, no Communal Credit. It was the Private Man under duress, coercion, threat of imprisonment, loss of life, etc., that delivered his gold to the thieves, it was not the corporate entities that turned in the gold.

 

(v) I am convinced that there is a one million dollar ($1,000,000) limitation on each occurrence that I may make "request for discharge" against the net public debt:

 

Title 26 USC section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return)."

 

(vi) I must address the issue of what, or how much, in the "form of money" was created to bring about this majestic public debt. First, let me state that "money" is the ONLY creation of mankind. Next, please be informed that only the debt money is created, never the interest.

 

And, you can not pay a debt instrument with a debt instrument (a "bill" with a Federal Reserve Note), you can only discharge the debt - set it off into the future, so the debt accrues and climbs to a higher level with each use.

 

Now, in reference to (ii) above stating that “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [non-14th Amendment citizens], as “the NET public debt,” when you and I direct the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge, or setoff, our (non 14th Amendment citizen) debts, it is the accrued interest returning to its' source, and reducing the public debt in the process.

 

5. We have studied, in depth, the Trading With The Enemies Act, TWEA T 50 APPENDIX App., and found the most recent edit of Title 50a of the US Code was released by the Law Revision Counsel - LRC - (http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on 2007-02-13  ...and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Fri Feb 16 04:33:56 2007. Therefore, our information seems to be most current.

 

a. We have determined that Sections 7, 9, and 16 of TWEA in Title 50 APPENDIX App. provides us with remedy and recourse; and, under said document, we confirm:

 

(i) We have administered our Claims under Oath; and,

 

(ii) All Claims are ONLY against Corporations; and,

 

(iii) All said Corporations are subject to the Secretary of State, Missouri State, The United States of America.

 

b. In the Nature of Declaration, we solemnly state:

 

(i) We are NOT Austrian or Hungarian nationals. We are NOT of Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Austria-Hungary ancestry.

 

(ii) We ARE Missouri Nationals, Missourians, of Scottish, Irish, British, and an indeterminate percentage of American Cherokee and other American Indians lineage. All of our parents were of similar percentage of European and Indian stock. We exercise Right of Claim as Remaindermen and heir to all assets belonging to our natural parents.

 

(iii) Our declaration of citizenship (pursuant to Trading With Enemy Act, TWEA) is upon the land  as Missourians (not within any corporate entity). 

 

(iv) Our proper political standing is established in International law, the law of nations and the treaty of nations, which guarantees every man the right to make political self determination, which may vary from time to time. We are properly seated in Office of We The People.

 

c. TWEA states that; after one has proper standing, and has established a relationship with the Comptroller, they have a duty to protect me. They are bonded to do so and they have taken an oath to do so. You have been properly Noticed of:

 

(i) My declaration of citizenship was made known for this last time in Section 5, b, (iii) above.

 

(ii) Notice has been served on the original registrars, being, they are the original fiduciary, that they, as per; UCC 1 and UCC 3 filings mentioned previously to effectively function to alleviate the distresses and eliminate the Breach of the Peace, which is the Highest Crime under International Law.

 

6. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

 

a. CONUSANCE, CLAIM OF, English law. This is defined:

(i) to be an intervention by a third person, demanding judicature in the cause against the plaintiff, who has chosen to commence his action out of claimant's court. 2 Wilson's R. 409.

 

(ii) It is a question of jurisdiction between the two courts Fortesc. R. 157; 5 Vin. Abr. 588; and not between the plaintiff and defendant, as in the case of plea to the jurisdiction, and therefore it must be demanded by the party entitled to conusance, or by his representative, and not by the defendant or his attorney. Id. ibid. A plea to the jurisdiction must be pleaded in person, but a claim of conusance may be made by attorney. 1 Chit. Pl. 403.

 

(iii) There are three sorts of conusance. 1. Tentere placita, which does not oust another court of its jurisdiction, but only creates a concurrent one. 2. Cognitio placitorum, when the plea is commenced in one court, of which conusance belongs to another. 3. A conusance of exclusive jurisdiction; as that no other court shall hold pica, &c. Hard. 509 Bac. Ab. Courts.

 

b. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1531 says, "In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it."

 

c. In Erie Rail Road –v- Thompkins (1938), the U.S Supreme Court Ruled: “The United States is a Bankrupt Nation in Receivership to this Nation’s Creditors;” And, “All Law is Commerce!”  Please see EXHIBIT - Commercial Crimes.

 

19 C.J.S. Sections 883, 884 of Chapter XVIII, Foreign Corporations follows in its entirety:

 

19 C.J.S. Section 883, page 541, XVIII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

Definition and General Considerations

 

A foreign corporation is one that derives it existence solely from the laws of another state, government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in statutes, to designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another state or a corporation created by or under the laws of a foreign country.

 

At common law, a corporation may be deemed a person, and statutes providing that corporations shall be deemed persons include foreign corporations.

 

Generally, the status of a foreign corporation as either foreign or domestic is determined solely by the place of its origin, without reference to the residence of its stockholders, or incorporators, or the place where the business is transacted.

 

However, by express enactment, a corporation, a majority of whose stock is held by aliens, is, for some purposes, deemed to be a foreign corporation. A domestic corporation does not become a foreign corporation merely by accepting from another state a grant of the right to own property and to transact business in such other state.

 

Federal Corporations

A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a foreign corporation. The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.

 

Section 884. Status

A corporation exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of law, and where that law ceases to operate, the corporation can have no existence. A state cannot impose one of its artificial creatures on another sovereignty nor confer on its corporators powers which they can lawfully exercise beyond its jurisdiction. Rather, it must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.

 

 

d. And, of course the "Fed" makes grants to the States - It all Starts Here:

(i) TITLE 49 Sec. 31102. - Grants to States (and, the borrower is slave to the lender)

 

(ii) Commercial Vehicle Programs - All law is "commerce", with commercial penalties.

 

(iii) "Your" driver license is a commercial permit. (And, it is only good for "commercial vehicles")

 

7. BE INFORMED, because of Interlocking Directorates of many agencies, offices, and governmental employees working in concert and collusion, the resultant effect, due to the usurpation of authority, excess of jurisdiction, or lack of all jurisdiction, not granted by the Lawful Man, is the experiencing of major pains and penalties and other crippling injuries, as per:

 

a. While, on its face, "executive measures" with the red and blue lights may seem to be a way to deter crime, implementing statutes actually gives incentives to judges, police officers and district attorneys to rope as many people into the court process as possible. Like any other commission structure, it is a numbers game. The higher the number of defendants created, the higher the payout for the police officer, the judge, and the District Attorney. [SEE 1997 Court Funding Act]

 

b. Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by Government officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared:

 

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.

 

For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the law, the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should resolutely set its face."

 

c. McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001) "government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone who takes an oath of office knows - or should know - that much."

 

d. "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

 

e. 18 USC 31, (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

 

f. 18 USC 31, (10) Used for commercial purposes.--- The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge, or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

 

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal.† 640.

 

“As the majority states, failure to verify the signature of the arresting officer on the Uniform Violations Complaint precluded the district court from being vested with subject matter jurisdiction and from being empowered to act. Therefore, all proceedings in the trial court are rendered void.” Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 (Okl. Cr. 1990).

 

g. "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.”  Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73).

 

h. The Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle even for limited purposes of questioning its occupants unless the police officer has a founded suspicion of criminal conduct. U.S. V. Ramirez & Sandoval, 872 F2d. 1392.

 

i. Harassment by threat of fraudulent proceedings prohibited: Source: Statute at Large 1997, ch 45, § 10; Statute at Large 2005, ch 120, § 228.

(Text of section effective July 1, 2006) Harassment by threat of fraudulent legal proceedings or liens prohibited--Misdemeanor--Subsequent violation felony. Any person who harasses any other person by sending or delivering, or causing to be sent or delivered, any letter, paper, document, notice of intent to bring suit, or other notice or demand that simulates any form of court or legal process and that threatens the other person, directly or indirectly, with incarceration, monetary fines, or penalties, or with the imposition of a counterfeit lien on the real or personal property of the other person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. Lack of belief in the jurisdiction or authority of the state or of the United States is no defense to a prosecution under this section.

 

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.

 

j. After all the above issues are brought into the light of Truth, there is but ONE JUDGMENT CALL for those at ground, grass roots, level and that is to STOP THE PIRATES AT "CRUISER" LEVEL. Educate them as best you can. Yes, you can starve the corporate beast. Convert them one by one. (Just bear in mind that a snake is a snake. When in doubt, ask yourself how many of your family that you love have been destroyed by an "extra close shave - the sheering of the Sheeple." How many of your paychecks have gone to the Beast and how many of your homes have gone to the international bankers thru fraud and deceit?)

 

If you do not comprehend that every “patrol vehicle” is a Pirate Cruiser, then, go back and read the above until you do. I’m not saying that all pirates are bad. Most pirates are nothing more than “privateers” contracted to the “Crown”. Most are just not informed. Many actually believe they are doing a service for the community. Just remember, if you have a cow and you want a calf, you call a farmer with a bull to “service” your cow. Point clear?

 

 

8. NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL - NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT.

 

Because of Interlocking Directorates and networking computerized files, you are charged with the responsibilities, duties, and directives to:

 

a. Assure that all related agents/agencies receive verification of this documentation, including, but not limited to:

 

(i) Comptroller of the Bankruptcy, because of the affect on the banking system

(ii) Secretary of State, United States

(iii) Commissioner of IRS, because of the effect on his records

(iv) U.S. Attorney General

(v) Associate U.S. Attorney General

(vi) Chief Counsel of the Office of Foreign Asset Control pursuant to 40 Stat 411

 

b. Accomplish the task of:

 

(i) Removal of our Christian Appellations, listed above, from Enemy of the State database

(ii) Placing our Diplomatic Standing in National Crime Information System – presented explicitly in the National Crime Information Center.

 

BOTTOM LINE:

 

A Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, U.S. v. Cheek.

"Biblical Law at "Common Law" supersedes all laws, and "Christianity is custom, custom is Law." Robin v. Hardaway 1790.

 

 

Habakuk, chapter 2 NASV: Then the Lord answered me and said, "Record the vision, and inscribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run.  For it is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail.  Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay…

 

Behold the proud one, his soul is not right within him…

 

Will not all of these take up a taunt-song against him, even mockery and insinuations against him, and say, 'Woe to him who increases what is not his -- for how long -- and makes himself rich with loans?  Will not your creditors rise up suddenly, and those who collect from you awaken?  Indeed, you will become plunder for them.  Because you have looted many nations, all the remainder [remnant] of the peoples will loot you -- because of human bloodshed and violence done to the land, to the town and all its inhabitants."

 

**********************************************************

 

14.  TO: Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer of the United States, hereinafter “Treasurer”

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20220

 

 

 

LETTER ROGATORY, ENTITLEMENT ORDER, AND PAYMENT ORDER

 

 

This Letter Rogatory, Entitlement Order, and Payment Order is presented by John-Quincy: Jones, seated in Office of We The People, looking to the highest known Person in venue of the Treasury Department of the United States government, Rosa Gumataotao Rios, requesting that Rosa Gumataotao Rios, examine the contents of the attached package, make any minor adjustments to the verbiage that may be necessary keeping the "spirit" of the intent unchanged, and notify me if any major changes are necessary.

 

I am in hopes that this package will suffice to accomplish the desired goals of bringing equity to this Private Man and assisting the operations of United States government by providing deposits and other support to the administration of said government to diminish the national debt.

 

 

EXHIBIT H

 

MEMORANDUM OF RECORD

 

TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT

This Testamentary Affidavit is prepared in accordance for use under the authority of and in accordance with the "Convention de la hay, 5 Octobre, 1961," and for evidentiary purposes, Federal and State under the authority of and in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, Rule 902, to establish "Self-authenticating evidence under Seal."