I heard a quote from Wesley “Your Christ is my Devil”. I could relate to his sentiment The Christ of the gospel message is completely misunderstood by the corrupt human heart. When a true Christian has a relationship with God through Christ he is easily criticized for his obedience which is foreign to all they know as righteous. It is why so many clamored to have Christ crucified. He knew that His true professions of the Godhead would be reflected by those who garner their righteousness from the devil.
What is so despicable about the judicial system Scott and I faced and still fight is that it borrows the righteous credibility of God’s righteousness buy follows the tenets of the devil. Christians foolishly allow themselves to be duped by the profession of righteousness and presume in their ignorance that God’s will is being performed. I tell you the fact by the knowledge of Christ, The true Christ, that our judicial system is akin to witchcraft and none who practice its art can know the Lord. If they profess a relationship with Christ their Christ is the devil of the true gospel.
I have had friends and I will use that term loosely who have studied the word of God with me. Yet when the institutions of law merely make the cursory claims of God’s authority they ignore the witness they have of me and condemn me as unjust. This is the work of the devil and true Christian love cannot practice it. So when you make the profession of Christ I am not easily moved and I will judge you by whose report you believe before I call you brother.
As for the judicial system it has made an enemy with Christ in me. I have no fear of the quantity or the size of the giants God throws at my rock. They will be defeated as Goliath because the true Christ of the gospel is more than a conjurer and is not deceived by the devil’s false righteousness.
As to the battles I face I do not grow weary and have always seen the victory inherent in Christ. So if you cannot understand my determination against or contempt for all things labeled lawful fear not it is easily understood: Christ is my devil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4,870 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1801 – 2000 of 4870 Newer› Newest»Here is the oath they are required to take. See page 144 in this PDF:http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/001_statutes_at_large.pdf
“I, A.B. Do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
Please note there is no "So held help God" in the above Oath because, as Article IV states, "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United State." So why is religious test being used on today's oaths. They must be pointing to the wrong Constitution.
Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
gus we neva get sick of eatin cheery oats!! hole da milk!
See page 144 in this PDF: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/001_statutes_at_large.pdf
The oath is one sentence. Do you see anything about the rich or the poor, or any kind of religious test in that one sentence?
Take a look again at the religious test in this oath. It's not required by the original document, so why put it in? Who are they trying to kid?
http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/alsup.william/affidavit.gif
OMO: You bring up some good points:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test
Dr. Caligari while sleep walking asks: "So have Kurt and Scott been released yet?"
I wish not to carry on a conversation with someone sleeping. It kind of makes me look like I'm crazy and I'm not. LOL
Another point worth mentioning is that the Search warrant executed on Feb. 1, 2005 was not signed by a Judge. This was brought to the attention of Matthew Ernst/FBI agent and his response was that "it doesn't matter and happens all the time." So there you have it, our tax dollars at work to terrorize it's citizens and violate their bill of rights. It happens all the time. LOL Not that's it's funny, but the arrogance of that statement is.
Makes you wonder if the arrest warrants against Kurt & Scott were legal. We know that Kurt & Scott's right to a speedy trial were violated, and now Kurt's rights are violated again by labeling him a terrorist and putting him in an illegal terrorist CMU prison where he can't communicate with the outside world and can't even have his friends & family visit him. That's a cruel & unusual punishment violating another right, considering there were no real victims in the criminal case as the "alleged victims" clients of the Dorean process where alleged damages were about $500,00 and never proven, & didn't even matched the "victims alleged", the banks, where alleged damages were suppose to be 50 Million and that was never proven either. Note, if a mortgage is discharged of record, that's suppose to be a total loss. LOL All the banks ignored those recorded filings & foreclosed on all Dorean clients anyway that were delinquent, so how is that a total loss? There's the world of reality, and there's the world of fantasy. For example: Judge Alsup's remarks to prejudice the jury talks about how he says lending works: "Within regulatory reserve requirements, banks are allowed to receive deposits from customers and then to use those deposits to make loans to borrowers, banks are also allowed to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank, and then to use those funds to make loans to borrowers, and banks are free to use their own equity to make loans to borrowers." He either flunked bank lending 101 or he's just a liar, or maybe both.
Yep, I deposited money in the bank of Alsup to my checking account the other day, and then noticed it was gone the day after, even though I wrote no checks. Then, I went to the bank of Alsup and asked where did my money go, and the Bank of Alsup said, "we loaned your money out." LOL
There was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court filed on May 21, 2008, that conclusively proved that the federal court had no personal or subject matter jurisdiction due to the way the indictments were lacking in their language to support jurisdiction, but the Federal Court ignored this totally. Without the want of jurisdiction, without the proof of jurisdiction on the record, everything thereafter was void, the trial, the guilty verdicts, the sentencing, everything, so this means Kurt & Scott's 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment to the Constitution [Bill of Rights] were violated.
The Affiant's Fourth Amendment guaranteed right that no warrant shall issue, the arrest warrant was invalid and void since the indictment failed to declare the jurisdiction of the district court.
But does any of this matter? It should to the guilty that falsely arrested innocent men, and falsely put them through a sham trial, and who falsely keep them there for no cause. Their day of reckoning is coming.
Also please note that Alsup did not swear or affirm to anything. His oath starts with "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;" The words "I, [William Alsup] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be)..." are conspicuously missing. He swore or affirmed nothing. The only person who swore or affirmed was the Chief United States District Judge Marilyn Patel, and the only thing she swore to was that he signed the 'oath' in front of her.
This is how the oath is supposed to start:
“I, A.B. Do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
Alsup took no oath at all:
http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/alsup.william/affidavit.gif
This is not a proper oath. Why did they chop it up like this:
I, WILLIAM HASKELL ALSUP, do solemnly swear that -
A. OATH OF OFFICE
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...
This is a proper oath:
I, William Haskell Alsup, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States...
The statute does not include the word defend. Why would you need to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic? You might need to defend the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic, but not the Constitution. Defending the United States is military's job, not the judges.
I, WILLIAM HASKELL ALSUP, do solemnly swear that -
A. OATH OF OFFICE
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...
The following oath doesn't swear or affirm to support the Constitution of the United States. This is why code is not law:
It solemnly swears or affirms to "administer justice without respect to persons... and to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)
OK!! HEAR COME DA SHEET DIRECK FROM DA POOPE!!!
dont mess wit da poope!!
in multiple parts
------------------------------------------
letter to obooma:
part I
Pope Francis Sends Obama Powerful Letter Via Attorney [on] July 4th 2014
Posted on August 19, 2015 by Truth Serum
CIVIL ORDERS – JULY 4, 2014
Issued to All Members of the Domestic Police Forces, US Marshals Service, the Provost Marshal, Members of the American Bar Association and the American Armed Services.
These organic American states of the Union known as The United States of America (major) exercising plenary civil power upon the land hereby appoint General Carter F. Ham to lead and command The Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) and its successors under the guidance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with their full support.
Should it become necessary to suppress commercial mercenary forces operating under the guise of being federal government agencies including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, etc., General Ham shall assume immediate command and control of all armed forces and services owed to The United States of America (major) stationed in North America and shall join them under his Command as The Grand Army of the Republic. All forces of air, land, and sea are to be employed.
Any cost or loss suffered as a result of deployment of The Grand Army of the Republic shall be charged as stipulated prior.
All effort shall be made by The Grand Army of the Republic to spare life and property while undertaking any action whatsoever within the states of the Union without exception. The GAR is uniquely enabled by these Orders to operate on the land of the fifty (50) organic states for the purposes of securing the lives and property of the American States and American State Citizens. The GAR is not a foreign army and is composed primarily of American State Citizens.
If required to take field position, the local commanders shall make every effort to communicate the basis of their authority and the reasons for their presence on American State soil to ensure a prompt cessation of hostilities and a widespread understanding of the usurpations and acts of fraud which have led to any conflict. All parties must be brought to understand the nature of the federal government, the limitations of its authority, and their own obligation to act in favor of the organic states of the Union. The Grand Army of the Republic shall continue to operate under General Order 100 known as the Lieber Code, extant from the pen of the last Republic President, Abraham Lincoln.
No orders, Executive or otherwise, issued by Barack H. Obama pretending authority on the land of the American States while operating as “President” of the UNITED STATES Corporation nor as the “President” of the United States of America (minor) are owed any performance by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Ham, or any Ordinary. All plainly stated grants of contractual authority evident in The Constitution for the united States of America remain in place, subject to good faith performance of the accompanying obligations and treaties.
part II
Mr. Obama is the “President” of a governmental services corporation under contract to provide stipulated services to the organic states and is on their payroll. He otherwise acts as a foreign dignitary representing the United States of America (minor). In neither of these capacities is he allowed any granted authority to impose upon American State Citizens, endanger American State property, or command mercenary forces on American State soil, however veiled as federal civilian service agencies. We require the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Ham to commence measures to disarm federal civilian agency personnel and to seize control of the vast stockpiles of arms which have been improperly amassed by “the Department of Homeland Security”, FEMA, and other agencies employed by the UNITED STATES.
The only federal agency allowed free egress on the land of the American States is the U.S. Marshals Service, and then only when their personnel are engaged in their duty to protect the U.S. Mail and sworn to act as constitutional officers. All other federal agency personnel are limited to unarmed service until further notice.
We direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to communicate these first two General Civil Orders directly to Mr. Obama, the members of the “US Congress”, the administrators of all “federal” agencies, the members of the “Supreme Court” and those acting as “Governors” to compel their rapid understanding and cooperation.
Any expense or damage incurred by these organic states or any American State Citizen as a result of actions undertaken by any federal agency personnel acting as armed mercenaries on American State soil will be understood as the result of violent crimes committed against the peaceful inhabitants of the land and will incur immediate judgment liquidating the assets of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Federal Reserve (FEDERAL RESERVE) in payment of the stipulated reparations. Such crimes shall also be considered contract default increasing the public debt subject to bounty.
Any and all corporate officers of the UNITED STATES or any successor organization(s) inheriting “federal” service contracts who support, condone, or promote such crimes against the American States or against American State Citizens shall be subject to arrest and prosecution for commercial and violent crimes. All foreign officials operating as elected or appointed officials of the United States of America (minor) who support, condone, or promote such crimes against the American States or against American State Citizens shall be subject to arrest, confiscation of their assets, and deportation to Puerto Rico, Guam, or such other “states” as may be willing to receive them.
part III
Such “foreign officials” include members of the American and British Bar Associations who were licensed to act as privateers against the interests of the American States and the American State Citizens from 1845 to 2013 in flagrant Breach of Trust. All such licenses are now extinguished. Members of the Bar Associations are required to cease and desist assaults against the American States and American State Citizens and shall be subject to arrest, confiscation, and deportation otherwise.
Insomuch as corporate officers operating the United States of America, Incorporated, and the UNITED STATES have contrived under conditions of fraud and semantic deceit to re-venue the estates of the American States and living American State Citizens to the foreign jurisdiction of the United States of America (minor) they are found guilty of capital crimes, including acts of fraud and treason committed between 1933 and 1945, and are condemned posthumously. Insomuch as elected officials operating the United States of America (minor) have similarly committed war crimes against the American States and their peaceful inhabitants during the same time period, they stand condemned posthumously.
No enforcement upon any American State or American State Citizen is owed as a result of any “Act” of any “Congress” operating as the sovereign government of the United States of America (minor), nor as the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of any incorporated entity whatsoever.
All those Estates and ESTATES erroneously believed to represent the American States and American State Citizens and which were conveyed by fraud and legal deceit to the United States of America (minor) and more recently to the City-State of the United Nations, are re-venued without exception to the geographically defined American States and the American State Citizens where they shall remain in perpetuity as assets belonging to the rightful and lawful beneficiaries.
All legal fiction entities however structured and named after the American States and American State Citizens are returned to them and their control, free and clear of any debt, promise, encumbrance or obligation alleged against them as a result of false claims made “in their behalf” by officers of the United States of America, Inc. and the UNITED STATES, INC. or by any foreign officials operating the United States of America (minor), or the United Nations City State falsely claiming to “represent” them or have jurisdiction over them.
We note that the current circumstance is in part the result of criminal acts engaged in 150 years ago, which resulted in the commercial enslavement of African Americans who were summarily claimed as chattels backing “US government” debt in the wake of the Civil War.
Despite every act of abolition and declaration of prohibition against both peonage and slavery, it has been the policy of the “US government” to enslave its citizens and to operate as a rogue state among the nations of the world. Instead of freeing African Americans the sum total result of the Civil War was to vastly expand public sector ownership of slaves, giving rise to the outrageous and improper claims that have been made against the American States and the American State Citizens that we are dealing with today. It is uniquely fitting that The Grand Army of the Republic is recalled to settle this circumstance in favor of the people.
Attachments:
CIVIL ORDERS Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow-Vorbeck, Private Attorney in service to His Holiness, Pope Francis Documents
Related:
"violent crimes committed against the peaceful inhabitants of the land and will incur immediate judgment liquidating the assets of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Federal Reserve (FEDERAL RESERVE) in payment of the stipulated reparations.
fukng LOLOLLOLLOL!!!!!!!!!
lickwidate yo ass!!! lol
Is Kurt in solitary confinement?
Young brain or old brain, solitary confinement is torture.
https://www.yahoo.com/health/what-happens-to-a-young-brain-in-solitary-127235455527.html
One of those kids described the experience to Human Rights Watch:
“The only thing left to do is go crazy — just sit and talk to the walls. … I catch myself [talking to the walls] every now and again. It’s starting to become a habit because I have nothing else to do. I can’t read a book. I work out and try to make the best of it. But there is no best. Sometimes I go crazy and can’t even control my anger anymore. … I can’t even get [out of solitary confinement] early if I do better, so it is frustrating and I just lose it. Screaming, throwing stuff around. … I feel like I am alone, like no one cares about me — sometimes I feel like, why am I even living?”
There was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court filed on May 21, 2008, that conclusively proved that the federal court had no personal or subject matter jurisdiction due to the way the indictments were lacking in their language to support jurisdiction, but the Federal Court ignored this totally. Without the want of jurisdiction, without the proof of jurisdiction on the record, everything thereafter was void, the trial, the guilty verdicts, the sentencing, everything, so this means Kurt & Scott's 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment to the Constitution [Bill of Rights] were violated.
The Affiant's Fourth Amendment guaranteed right that no warrant shall issue, the arrest warrant was invalid and void since the indictment failed to declare the jurisdiction of the district court.
____________________________
And without a lawful oath... everything is void, the trial, the guilty verdicts, the sentencing, everything, so this means Kurt & Scott's 4th, 5th, & 6th amendment to the Constitution [Bill of Rights] were violated.
Yes Kurt is in solitary confinement 23 of 24 hours a day from what I understand.
OMO, you worked there at the Dorean office, and were there at the FBI raid, so you might find this interesting. Scott was telling me that the search and seizure on the Dorean office was done without a proper warrant signed by a Judge and without the proper court seal. Course that makes it an illegal search and seizure period. When confronted with this Matthew Ernst said, "no big deal, it's done all the time."
Judge Phyllis, the chief judge in Northern California is probably trying to figure out how to ignore or squash the CLGJ writ to release Kurt & Scott and do it in a way that won't ruin her career and put her with legal problems.
Course there is no answer or out for her. She'll have to relent and release both of them soon or pay a huge price. We're still waiting for word of an emergency hearing to be scheduled where both of them will be released from prison to attend the hearing.
This issue won't stay in limbo very long.
I can't help but believe that at some point Judge Alsup's career is going to be ruined too by the Dorean saga.
The Federal Court never had jurisdiction to even hear the matters, so that alone voids everything too.
I found it humorous that on the indictments the Dorean Group were mentioned, and during the trial the Judge told the prosecutors to find out who the Dorean Group was. They never found any conclusive proof who the Dorean Group were, so they just assumed it was Kurt & Scott and that was the end of that.
The same was true with the trust company "First Mutual Trust of Switzerland". They were told to find out who they were, and get information on the Principals, their business, etc. but only found out that the address they used for incorporation was a flower shop address. And when Judge Alsup asked for proof, the US Attorney said, we found our information on the internet. No real search about the legitimacy of the bond, the trusts assets, nothing, very sloppy research as only a computer was used.
Then of course on the indictments there wasn't anything on the indictments to prove or even state jurisdiction either. And when there was a filing to challenge jurisdiction, by the defendants, the US Attorneys were required by law to prove they had jurisdiction. That never happened either, and all that was totally ignored.
Then after reading the instructions to the jury yesterday, I was appalled at all the lies that Judge Alsup spoke. Talk about jury tampering.
Then all the principals that Judge Alsup said was law was just a bunch of crap, especially when he talked about bank lending, and how it works, and especially when he talked about "subrogation" and how in law someone else could not legally pay the debt of another which is total crap that a first year law student would even know better. Course he was trying to discredit the "Dorean subrogation Bond" & suggesting it could not be valid because at law, the idea of subrogation didn't exist at law.
Kurt said that Judge Alsup was raised a Christian, and apparently he had great hopes at one time that Judge Alsup would somehow make things turn out for the better for Kurt & Scott, but obviously going to Church Judge Alsup learned nothing, because if "subrogation" doesn't exist in a legal sense, than legally speaking he believes also Jesus Christ could not have paid for the sins of mankind, because it would never had been legally accepted. So since Judge Alsup doesn't believe in the atonement of Christ, the greatest gift ever given to mankind, that makes him an AntiChrist for sure, so he's not just an embarassment to the legal profession, he's an embarassment to the whole of Christianity, and to his teachings as a youth, and has offended Christians everywhere by his Devilish philosophy what he believes the law to be.
Here's a great cite showing the grand jury's authority and power: "If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction." Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.
So even the admiralty courts admit the superior jurisdiction of the CLGJ writ and jurisdiction.
So you see, the admiralty courts that put Kurt & Scott away doesn't have jurisdiction anymore. Their case was taken to a superior court, even above the Supreme Court. The writ infers they are innocent and must be freed. The writ comes from a superior court that can't be challenged, reviewed, or appealed, the court of the People as defined in the Constitution, a "superior" court.
The inferior courts mentioned in the Constitution are Courts, that aren't Courts of Record.
The CLGJ is a "court of record" and it's a settled matter.
So Judge Phyllis can only ignore freeing Scott & Kurt, by ignoring the Constitution.
Quotes from the Jury instructions from Judge Alsup:
"Prejudicial instructions like, page 1: "you must follow the law in my instructions whether you agree with the law or not."
Page 1: "You must not read into these instructions or into anything the Court may have said or done"
Page 6:
"You have heard evidence that the FBI raised the offices of the Dorean Group and that defendants were arrested. This information may not be used by you to infer that actions were committed." Judge should have said, the search warrants were illegal and the FBI didn't have a search warrant signed by a Judge if he wanted to be fair and fully disclose. He should have said, Just because the search was illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the defendants were guilty of something. LOL
Page 6: "Nothing that I have said or done, I reiterate, should influence your verdict. That is a matter entirely up to you."
The jury can't use the fact that the Judge perverted the law to influence the Jury as a reason to vote not guilty?
Page 7: "You have heard that certain counts involving bank fraud have been dismissed by the government. This has nothing to do with whether the counts that are on trial have or have not been proven."
"That the bank fraud counts have been dismissed voluntarily does not mean that the banks were not defrauded--nor does it mean that they were. It is simply irrelevant to your decision."
Page 7: Untrue statement: "You have heard testimony from Farrel LeCompte and Jennifer Holtzer witnesses who were alleged to have been involved in the crime charged and who pleaded guilty or no contest to a crime....."
Jennifer Holtzer was never charged with any crime in the indictments.
Then you have all of these conditioning and uncalled for and irrelevant statements that have nothing to do with the indictments that sway the Jury like:
Page 7: "You have heard about prior convictions of Mr. Johnson. You may consider this only for purposes of evaluating his credibility as a witness and not as proof of guilt in this case. You have heard that both defendants have been arrested in connection with another matter in Utah. You may not consider those arrests as proof of any guilt in this case."
Untrue statements under the law espoused by the Judge concerning rescission and loans:
Page 9: "Under no circumstances can the borrower simply eliminate the loan, recover the collateral, and keep the money from the loan."
The Jesiloski decision in Jan. 2015 says otherwise on the topic of "rescission of a loan". All that is required is the letter sent to the bank to cancel the loan, borrower doesn't have to file a suit or even return the property or any money until the lender does their obligations first. The rescission becomes effective by operation of law the day the rescission letter is sent. Lender must first return all monies paid on the loan to the borrower, otherwise, the borrower can keep the property "without further obligation." See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-684
and the TILA law.
Judge Alsup has no real life understanding of bank loans:
Page 9: "Within regulatory reserve requirements, banks are allowed to receive deposits from customers and then to use those deposits to make loans to borrowers, banks are also allowed to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank and then to use those funds to make loans to borrowers; and banks are free to use their own equity to make loans to borrowers."
Page 9: "Of course, a borrower or his agent or his trustee may send a letter to a lender complaining about aspects of a loan. The lender, however, is not legally obligated to respond to such a letter, at least with respect to any circumstances relevant to this case. Rather the lender is free to ignore the letters and to stand on its rights under the loan documents."
Page 10: "Ignoring such a letter or notice cannot have the effect of lawfully appointing anyone as the lender's agent or attorney-in-fact. In turn, any reconveyance signed by any such purported attorney-in-fact or purported agent would be unathorized and invalid."
This was the strongest defense of the Dorean Process which the prosecution called a scam, because in the worst case scenario if the Dorean Group was incorrect in discharging the liens for all clients upon the default of the banks to answer & prove a real loan was given, at least there was an insurance policy given to the banks which was a subrogation bond to make them whole twice over, where they couldn't claim a loss. And that was the issuance of a subrogation bond in the amount of twice the original loan amount at closing given to the banks, as long as they would be honest about the lending process, they could cash these bonds which were real, but no banks would do that & come clean and honest answer point for point the affidavit of Scott which was required to address or sign an affidavit already prepared for them which is how banks say lending works. No bank would sign or address that either, but rather chose to ignore their lending fraud.
Page 10: "You have also heard reference to a subrogation and security bond. Under the law, no borrower has the unilateral right to substitute someone else's promise to pay for his or her own promise to pay. Nor can a borrower unilaterally substitute a bond for his original collateral under the loan." To prove that Judge Alsup is lying through his teeth,
Here's what it says in the Law Dictionary, by Steven H. Gifis on the topic of subrogation:
page 203: "The substitution of another person in the place of the creditor to whose rights he [the other person[ succeeds in relation to the debt; one's payment or assumption of an obligation for which another is primarily liable." McClintock, Equity 123 (2d ed. 1948).
"This doctrine is not dependent upon contract, nor upon privity between the parties; it is the creature of equity, and is founded upon principles of natural justice. Subrogation has been generally classified as being either legal or conventional. Legal subrogation arises by operation of law where one having a liability, or right, or a fiduciary relation in the premises, pays a debt due by another under such circumstances that he is in equity entitled to the security or obligation held by creditor whom he has paid. Conventional subrogation, on the other hand, arises where by express or implied agreement with the debtor, a person advancing money to discharge a prior lien might be substituted to thesecurity of the prior lienee." 18 S.E. 2d 917, 920.
Subrogation typically arises when an insurance company pays its insured under a collision protection feature of an insurance policy; in that event the company is subrogated to the cuase of aciton if its insured. So too under workmen's compensation acts the board is subrogated to the injured worker's right (up to the amount of the board's payments) to sue the responsible party.
My feelings: Only an Anti-Christ like Judge Alsup who offends the intelligence of all Christians everywhere would say that subrogation has no real effect or legal efficacy in the world. In his lies, He he would also deny that Jesus Christ, as a subrogation agent, took upon himself all the sins of the world, and literally paid for all sins and debts, and even had no legal right to do so, thus,. Judge Alsup is denying the greatest gift ever given. That's how unspiritual and stupid and devilish he is.
More lies:
Page 11: "There is nothing in the UCC that would alter the lender-borrower law described in these instructions. There is nothing in the federal-reserve system or other banking laws that affects the rights and duties of lenders and borrowers as I state them to you in these instructions. Nor is there anything in generally accepted accounting principles that would modify the law as I state it to you in thee instructions. "
My response: UCC 3-603(b) Rejection of the subrogation bond is discharge of the debt is one UCC law Judge Alsup failed to mention, however, there are many to refute his lies.
Also GAAP proves that the loan was paid off at closing if you can subpoena FAS 140, the offsheet accounting records of the banks which the banks refuse to provide as they call them "trade secrets" & "proprietary information."
Page 12: "Turning to Count One, it alleges that defendants knowingly conspired between themselves to devise a scheme to defraud lenders to obtain money by means of materially false statements. Count One alleges various attempts to eliminate mortgage pursuant to the alleged conspiracy."
My thoughts: There was never the intent to "defraud lenders" as the subrogation bond was given. There were no "false statements ever proven.
Page 13: "the accused knowingly conspired with one or more of the alleged co-conspirators to commit a scheme to defraud".
My thoughts: The conspiracy of a scheme to defraud was never proven. The intent to commit a crime was also never proven. Without the "intent", there was no case for the prosecution. Everything the Dorean did was based upon the law.
The United States is pretty hard on political prisoners. Here are a couple of articles I found on the subject.
http://www.pjvoice.com/v52/52005news.aspx
Political Prisoners in the United States?
Depoliticizing our criminal system -- Dr. Daniel E. Loeb
Does the United States actually have political prisoners?
Probably not by the strict definition of the term: people incarcerated for their political beliefs. But there are millions of American citizens in the criminal justice system who are pawns in our political system. The criminalization of an activity and the pursuit, arrest and incarceration of people engaged in those activities have political ramifications which, in turn, can tempt lawmakers to make decisions which favor their own political viewpoints.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_8782.shtml
(This is the first in a series of articles examining the plight and problem of political prisoners inside the United States.)
Campaigns to free aging revolutionaries and activists have highlighted the reality that political prisoners exist in the United States.
Advocates insist political, law enforcement and corrections officials want to mask decades of parole denials, years of inhumane solitary confinement and episodes of domestic torture inflicted on Blacks and others for challenging racism and oppression.
“The main thing we need to understand is the fact that these soldiers—and they are soldiers—are not in prison because they’re criminals. They’re in prison for daring to stand up to this rotten, no good system that we live under,” said Ramona Africa, minister of information for the MOVE Organization, the Philadelphia-based group founded by John Africa.
“When (political prisoners) go to parole board hearings, prosecutors aren’t launching legal appeals, but emotional appeals by bringing out police, firemen, family members, all saying he or she should stay in,” said Francisco Torres, a onetime Black Panther. Last year the courts finally dropped accusations that he murdered a police officer in 1971.
But not only have political prisoners done their time, their behavior in prison has been exemplary, say advocates.
Many have quelled prison riots and in some instances, wardens have commended them.
“They’ve gotten certificates and diplomas in prison so when it’s time for them to get out, they’re told they’re being held in there because of their politics basically, their beliefs and their thoughts,” Mr. Torres said.
Veronza Bowers, Jr., who served his entire sentence, was labeled a threat to society and denied release under the George W. Bush-era Patriot Act, which expanded police powers. The former Black Panther Party member was convicted of killing a park ranger on the testimony of two informants and has been incarcerated for 37 years now in Atlanta.
Kurt and Scott aren't the first to be falsely accused, wrongly convicted, and excessively sentenced. Hundreds if not thousands are in the same predicament.
Part I
Live Affidavit to: Common Law Citizen’s Grand Jury HQ and John Daresh
Posted on August 22, 2015 by arnierosner
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Anna von Reitz wrote:
Moving on we are diligently processing all the Notice functions and court work…..
Please find the copy of the letter accompanying the live affidavit being sent to the Common Law Citizen’s Grand Jury HQ and John Daresh.
Herein I explain one of the things that seems to be befuddling so many people about the Citizen’s Common Law Grand Jury Movement and why it can’t seem to gain traction despite all the brave words.
It’s really very simple. To enforce the presentments and indictments of a Common Law Grand Jury you need the rest of an apparatus of a Common Law Court System — Common Law Judges, Trial Juries, Sheriffs on the Land, Bailiffs, Clerks…..
This seems stupidly obvious when I say it out loud, but apparently the necessity of rebuilding on the Justices of the Peace at the County level and upon the very, very few State Common Law Judges that are operating Common Law Courts and the even fewer Federal Postal Judges—- has not yet occurred to everyone.
From the Desk of Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
c/o Post Office Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
Via U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
7012 3460 0003 4344 9927
August 21, 2015
Mr. John Daresh
United United States Common Law Grand Jury
In Care of: P.O. Box 59
Valhalla, New York 10595
RE: American Affidavit
Dear Sir:
We attempted to deliver this published and bound Affidavit of Probable Cause to your Alaska Grand Jury Membership, but it was returned to us unopened and for unstated reasons. We are therefore forwarding it to the National Headquarters.
This is a “live” Affidavit of Probable Cause containing original wet-ink signatures and individual seals of the living men and women and their organic states of the union.
As we have been watching your activities unfold we realize that you are laboring under some of the same misinformation that has been so much a part of the development of the present circumstance.
Please carefully read and examine the evidence and history presented by our affidavit. This will shed considerable light on the overall circumstance.
The Citizen’s Common Law Grand Jury stands as a lynch pin between two (2) completely separate Court Systems—- (1) the Continental Court System operating the land jurisdiction of the United States and the Several States on the Land which has existed for over 400 years and which is competent to render judgments under Article VII of The Constitution for the united States of America, and (2) the Federal Court System which came into being in 1789-90 and which operates the District and Federal “State of State” franchises we are familiar with.
cot'd below
Part II
The Citizen’s Common Law Jury is enabled to present charges against American State Citizens and Non-Citizen Nationals and indictments against United States Citizens. Both.
The problem is that the Continental Court System has been left in disrepair and virtually abandoned, so that it appears that the only venue is the Federal Court System. And the Federal Court System operates exclusively in international and commercial and other foreign venues. Since 1938 there hasn’t been a federal Common Law Court of any kind at any level — which means that if we want to operate under Common Law we have to provide an entire Common Law System for ourselves—not just a Citizen’s Grand Jury, which is only a part — about one-fourth— of a Common Law Court.
To exercise the true power of the Citizen’s Common Law Grand Jury Americans have to rebuild the Continental Court System and restore our own standing as inhabitants of the land jurisdiction of the Continental United States. This does not imply destroying the Federal Court System. It isn’t “either/or”—-but in order to work properly, our system of government requires that both court systems function and function well.
The essence of this dilemma is found in Erie Railroad v. Thompkins (1938) which determined that there is no general Federal Common Law. This means that for all practical purposes the Federal Court System including the Federal “State of State” and “County of” courts ceased functioning under Common Law and were forced to operate exclusively in the foreign and international jurisdictions of the Sea.
You have to call public meetings and elect people to office to staff the Continental Courts and start the process on a volunteer basis. Our first meeting here in Alaska was held in my living room. The Alaska State Superior Court is one of only a handful of Common Law Courts operating in America. There need to be Common Law Courts re-established in every county and every State and at the national level, too.
The members of NLA and the Common Law Grand Jury Movement can form the core group needed to reboot the Continental Court System and bring justice back to America. It is only by our own efforts that this vital work can be done.
An important part of this process is coming to terms with your own status and standing.
In the absence of clear public declarations and evidence otherwise, everyone is presumed to be Federal United States Citizens. This is a completely different and foreign status than that of American State Citizens— which is what you think you are. You have unwittingly become subject to hidden contracts that have been exercised against us by foreign commercial interests and unscrupulous members of the American Bar Association.
To function honorably as members of the Citizens Grand Jury and as Judges, Sheriffs, and Officers of the Common Law Continental Court System as a whole, we must each take action to declare our status as American State Citizens and should also take action in the corporate “County of” probate courts to correct the civil records.
cot'd below
Part III
We are each protected in doing this by the Universal Right of Self-Declaration guaranteed by the United Nations and by the actual Constitution for the united States of America and by the Geneva Conventional Protocols of 1949. Exactly how and why this is true is discussed in the body of the accompanying affidavit.
Although this appears to be a comic book and is written at the 6th grade level for much of its content, you will find that the subject matter is very serious indeed. It outlines the important facts and motive forces of the past 700 years and incorporates them as the probable cause for both criminal and commercial complaints in behalf of the living people inhabiting much of the world and in particular the Several States.
Although I appear as one of the authors I do not appear in any judicial capacity. This is a private affidavit published on the public record for the cognizance of all Americans and all people worldwide who value the principles of freedom and their own Natural and Unalienable rights.
We hope that the NLA and Citizens Grand Juries will begin a serious re-appraisal of the situation and renew their efforts to educate everyone concerned. We also hope that upon serious reflection you will see the necessity of rebuilding the Continental Court System as a whole to establish the only court system that is competent under Article VII to hear cases involving actual people and actual assets of the land jurisdiction.
If you find the information presented compelling, you are further invited to begin deliberation. Several international courts of record are already involved, but under the circumstance, it would be appropriate for the Citizens Grand Jury to be advised and enabled.
Sincerely,
Anna -Maria
http://scannedretina.com/2015/08/22/live-affidavit-to-common-law-citizens-grand-jury-hq-and-john-daresh/
************ The Alaska State Superior Court is one of only a handful of Common Law Courts operating in America.**********
Political prisoner Veronza Bowers, Jr.
http://www.veronza.org/
And - China has pulled out of the IMF and will now introduce the Gold Backed Yuan as the New World Currency for the 140 BRICS Nations.
Posted by William Mount at 10:57 PM No comments:
SOURCE: WWW.DRWILLIAMMOUNT.BLOGSPOT.COM
little by littel, tighting the vice on the ZONISTS
who are we??
WE ARE THE Z........ and we run this wurld.
https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/zionists.jpg?w=787&h=721
Mogel-thanks for the update. First words from Kurt I have read since the last blog post.
said...
who are we??
WE ARE THE Z........ and we run this wurld.
https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/zionists.jpg?w=787&h=721
ye, but yo aint gonna be running it fo lawng!
look like da sheet finlee gonna the fan....da zonists gonna loose all they mooney in da sock make it. too bar!
Swissindo. Interesting talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMj95hLLUcw
From the video above:
26:10 Just to let people know that if you do hold a position within the government that is on a bureaucratic level or a head of a department, you don't necessarily have to go by the laws of your government anymore, because the government is not a government, it's a private corporation acting as a foreclosed entity outside of the rule of law—any law—international law or domestic law, [and] you're not allowed to run a company that's been foreclosed.
31:55 A license was invented by the lawyers as a way to make the illegal legal. So a license was originally something that was illegal to do, but you've got a license so you're allowed to do it now—and that has escalated out of control.
After serving his sentence of 37 years, still no release date for Veronza
bop.gov
VERONZA LEON BOWERS
Register Number: 35316-136
Age: 69
Race: Black
Sex: Male
Located at: Atlanta USP
Release Date: LIFE
If Kurt and Scott keep fighting to get out they may find themselves in same position as Veronza: no parole at end of sentence. The system knows what those two are about and considers them to be paper terrorists.
As soon as Kurt is allowed to receive letters, let me know. I'll be the first to inform him that Christ was political prisoner, and for reasons unknown, did not fight for his life, likely because he knew it would be an exercise in futility- he knew the game. This game of political prisoners has been going since the time of Christ, at least as far as far as history tells us. Now they've got laws, codes and statutes to cover it up- they don't want anyone to see the forest (political prisoner system) so they cover it up with trees (laws, statutes, codes, regulations, etc.)
A dismantling of the current political system is all we can hope for.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-why-rome-fell
Why Rome Fell
Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks to a severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened imperial coffers, and oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and poor. In the hope of avoiding the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even fled to the countryside and set up independent fiefdoms. At the same time, the empire was rocked by a labor deficit. Rome’s economy depended on slaves to till its fields and work as craftsmen, and its military might had traditionally provided a fresh influx of conquered peoples to put to work. But when expansion ground to a halt in the second century, Rome’s supply of slaves and other war treasures began to dry up. A further blow came in the fifth century, when the Vandals claimed North Africa and began disrupting the empire’s trade by prowling the Mediterranean as pirates. With its economy faltering and its commercial and agricultural production in decline, the Empire began to lose its grip on Europe.
First of all, Bowers got a life sentence. You don't have to give parole to someone that got a life sentence. Kurt & Scott do not have a life sentence.
I don't see the connection. Bowers doesn't have a common law grand jury judgment for his release does he? I thought not. What did Bowers do to get a life sentence?
And don't you think Kurt & Scott were considered paper terrorists even before they were imprisoned? Nothing that they say or do is probably going to change that perception to most.
The answer is not to just sit tight. That's a waste and a quitters mentality.
And furthermore, Kurt already paid the civil penalty & then some for all the Dorean convictions, all Brokers & Principals included.
And as far as your perception of why Jesus did what he did, you don't have a clue, what you say about his motivations is totally inaccurate. Read the scriptures, they'll tell you why he behaved the way he did. I can tell by your conclusions you haven't read the Holy Book or you simply don't understand it.
Jesus chose to die, to suffer the crucifixion, to perform the atonement, Jesus chose his path. He always had a choice. He could have destroyed all of his enemies if that was what he chose, but he chose to submit to the will of the Father and that was to suffer and die by his enemies, but that was not his purpose to escape prison, and not die by the hands of his enemies. His life and death and the way he suffered, exactly the way that it played out was prophesied exactly as things turned out hundreds of years prior. You seem to forget he was the Son of God. To say he could have done nothing because the government powers were too strong is just blasphemy as it belittles his power.
And as far as being able to tell Kurt anything in prison, that's isn't ever going to happen as long as he's there.
Bowers did not get a life sentence. You would have known that had you bothered to read the website I posted (veronza.com).
Here's what the website says:
"June 21, 2005, was the day Veronza Bowers was to be released from federal prison on mandatory parole after more than 31 years of incarceration. This date was based on a vote of the five-member U.S. Parole Commission in Washington, D.C., the highest governing body in our nation's parole system. We just learned that, once again, at the very last moment, Veronza's release has been cancelled."
And I don't believe what the scriptures say. I don't believe everything I read for that matter. The truth is we really don't know what happened. Anyone can a write a book. Believe what you want.
"And as far as being able to tell Kurt anything in prison, that's isn't ever going to happen as long as he's there.
______________
Why not?
Because Kurt's in an illegal CMU (Communications Management Unit), and they forbid letters sent to him, and he won't get them if you sent anything, and he can't send communication out either. That ban started June 1, 2015. He can't receive visitors either, no one.
I didn't think I had to read further because you wrote: Release Date: "Life".
Why would the parole board need to amend a life sentence?
And if you don't believe the scriptures, how do you expect to know him or what Jesus's real thoughts and intentions were? I"m sure you won't convince Kurt of anything on this subject.
You obviously are of the opinion Kurt & Scott are never getting out. They certainly don't believe that or accept that, nor do I.
Anyone didn't write the Bible. It was written by many holy prophets for centuries, who were inspired to tell the truth, and those writings, which composed of many authors, were compiled in the Book called the Bible. It is no ordinary book, as you make it out to be.
Yes we do know what happened. Jesus died, and was resurrected and came back and 500 + people witnessed his resurrection, along with the 12 apostles, Mary, and others, and this was recorded. Others in modern times have given testimony of his resurrection since his death too, so Jesus is no myth, nor are all the fulfilled prophecies a myth either, but any doubters will be silenced at his second Coming when he comes in the clouds with tens of thousands of resurrected Saints, and destroying angels, and at that time, it will be a settled matter because all the wicked and unbelievers will be convinced who he is, even the unbelieving Jews. When people are destroyed by fire and other means, they'll be no questions or theories on what's going on. Jesus will also be the ecclesiastical and governmental leader in that day and accepted by all, so if you don't accept him, obviously you won't be here at that time.
currency reset:
its all right here.
MUST READ: http://www.scribd.com/doc/275219426/Global-Currency-Reset-Revaluation-of-Currencies-Historical-Overview
AGIAN!!! missed it by one mint! dam! 9:10
WOW!!!!!
zimbe doola will revalyo @ 0.04-0.14 USD!!!
so sum nun i no bought $200 doolas of zimby dollas
$200 doolas of zimby dollas is 1000 trillion zimby doolas or
ONE QUADRILLON zimby doolas!!!!
so if rehabyo at 4 cents then worth $0.04 x 1,000,000,000,000,000 zimby doolas = a hole lot of funking $$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Why would the parole board need to amend a life sentence?"
Again, you would have known he did not receive a life sentence had you read the short article I posted:
"Veronza Bowers, Jr., who served his entire sentence, was labeled a threat to society and denied release under the George W. Bush-era Patriot Act, which expanded police powers. The former Black Panther Party member was convicted of killing a park ranger on the testimony of two informants and has been incarcerated for 37 years now in Atlanta."
I don't know who amended his sentence to LIFE and who has the authority to do that without a new trial. It seems they can do whatever want... that's evident.
"You obviously are of the opinion Kurt & Scott are never getting out."
Not exactly. Since they weren't accused of killing anyone they'll probably get released at some point, but it's not going to be because he had a "common law grand jury judgment for his release," because that would set a precedent for all political prisoners to be released, wouldn't it? The system is not interested in truth. That's evident. Kurt and Scott were offered plea deals (plead guilty and get out in 8 years) which backfired on them because they thought they could beat the system with their so-called "truth". The system is not interested in truth, why can't they get that through their thick heads?
I don't have to read the scriptures to know what happened to Christ. History repeats itself. They're still crucifying people for their beliefs-- Nothing has changed. They are not interested in truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Management_Unit
Communication restrictions
Compared to other inmates, those placed in the CMU have little contact with the outside world. At least $14 million is spent on surveillance of the CMUs. A counterterrorism team in West Virginia monitors verbal communication remotely.[5]
Visitation
The CMU permits two hours, twice per month, and no contact, meaning the visitor and inmate are in separate rooms with viewing through a glass window and talking via telephone. All conversations must be in English unless special permission is granted 10 days in advance. This is in contrast to ordinary inmates in ordinary units, where the visitation standard includes unlimited contact on their visitation day, once each week or biweekly.[4] In addition to the already imposed restrictions, CMU “prisoners are banned from any physical contact with visiting friends and family, including babies, infants, and minor children.”[6]
Mail
Non-CMU prisoners can usually send and receive unlimited mail, where incoming mail is checked for contraband, then delivered to the inmate. With the exception of correspondence with lawyers and the courts, letters sent to and from the CMU are read, copied and evaluated before being released, which results in delays of a week or more.[4]
Telephone
Convicts in the general population are permitted 300 phone minutes per month; rules in the CMU allow one call per week, limited to 15 minutes, and it must be in English unless special permission is granted 10 days in advance. The duration of the single call can be reduced to 3 minutes at the discretion of the warden.[4]
I wonder what Kurt did to make them think he was a terrorist?
Origin (of the CMU)
As part of the Bush Administration's War on Terrorism, the April 3, 2006 Federal Register included proposed rules by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) that "Limited Communication for Terrorist Inmates".[1] The changes were in response to criticism that the FBOP had not been adequately monitoring the communications of prisoners, permitting several terrorists convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to send letters to other terrorists overseas. "By concentrating resources in this fashion, it will greatly enhance the agency's capabilities for language translation, content analysis and intelligence sharing", according to a government statement released with the rules.[2]
"A man who is not afraid is not aggressive, a man who has no sense of fear of any kind is really a free, a peaceful man." Jiddu Krishnamurti
We all know Kurt and Scott have a very strong beliefs. They want the Just Us system to believe what they believe. the Just Us system believes they are right and Kurt and Scott believe they are wrong. The Just Us system) has its own set of strong beliefs. Thus it's a push-pull no-win situation- never ending situation- one set of beliefs against another set of beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szf0Wfiv69Y
3:00 U.G. : " I understand, because we believe in something, and unfortunately you have a need to believe, and naturally there is somebody else who believes in a totally different thing. So belief separates us-- as long as you succumb to your belief so long there will be wars."
http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/alsup.william/oath.gif
Mogle007 said:
When you say valid oaths, can you elucidate further and give all reasons for that statement?
All you have to do is compare the above oath to the statute. Does it match the statute or is it different? For each and every way Alsup's oath is different from the statute is the reason (or reasons) is it is invalid.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/001_statutes_at_large.pdf
Be it enacted by the Senate and [House] Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit: I, A.B., do solemnly swear of affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
Sec. 4 And be it further enacted, That all officers, or hereafter to be appointed and the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective office, take the same oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective oaths of office.
...said
"All you have to do is compare the above oath to the statute"
ho yo camper oats to statues??
All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jiddu_krishnamurti.html#sFvTJGtcmrJkHl3d.99
OMO: The CMU rules are generally speaking. Kurt has no privileges now.
Have you heard anything from Scott?
Winston Strout said....
Winston Shrout: How Does The Soekarno Trust Relate to Redemption? Part 1 August 25, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRHpw4RqhEo&feature=youtu.be
think yo got b@@ls???
then donate yo b@@ls and get pay fo it.
tehn you relly can say dat yo dun haft no b@@ls!!
Donate a Testicle The payout for this is $35,000. Need some EXTRA CASH? If you want to help the science community and line your pockets with a little bit of money there are some unconventional ways to do this by selling your body to science. Below is a list we found of the 5 most creative ways to make money by selling your body:
1. Sell your blood plasma. The payout $20-$50 per donation
Human Plasma is a clear liquid that contains mostly water but is also filled with enzymes, proteins and antibodies. It is the largest component in the human blood. Human Plasma is mainly used to create therapies that treat people with autoimmune diseases, burn victims and clotting disorders. When blood is being drawn an automated machine separates the human plasma from the other blood components which is then returned to the donor. You can receive a payout between $20-$50 per donation.
2. Donate your reproductive cells. The payout for eggs is $5,000-$10,000 per donation. The payout for sperm is $30-$200 per donation.
Egg donor agencies allow women whose ovaries do not produce healthy eggs to become pregnant using another woman’s eggs through IVF. In the United States egg donors can receive anywhere from $5000-$10,000 per donation from egg donor agencies. Men can donate their sperm to sperm donor banks with a much easier process and also a bit less lucrative than an egg donation. Men are paid anywhere from $30-$200 per human cell donation. However that can add up to more in the pocket because men can donate hundreds of sperm samples.
3. Lay in bed for 70 days straight. The payoff for this one is $18,000
NASA uses this procedure to simulate some of the changes that occur in an astronaut’s body when going through space, weightless, during the flight. NASA will pay you to stay in bed for 70 days, 24 hours a day. You need to make sure you’re mentally prepared to spend 70 days in bed. Not everybody is comfortable with that. Not everybody can tolerate an extended time in bed. But remember the payout for this one….. $18,000!
4. Donate a Testicle. The payout for this is $35,000
On a episode of “Extreme Cheapskates “a Las Vegas man figured out a way to make some money by signing up for medical trials. He saved himself more than $750. That inspired him to take it one step further. Most recently he also agreed to donate one of his testicles. But they didn’t just leave him hanging. They replaced it with an artificial one and paid him $35,000. It was reported that he used the money to purchase a Nissan 370 Z.
5. Enroll in psychological experiments. The payout varies per program
Paid psychological experiments that examine behavior of brain function may not generate as high of a return as other trials, but they’re usually lower risk and require shorter commitment time. Most research universities offer easy sign up by keeping an online database of experiments available for people.
Source: Daily Buzz Live
then yo be like jug beans:
NO B@@LS!!!
OMO: Yes, I communicate with Scott. You can communicate with him also by getting on www.corrlinks.com and get his approval and the prisons approval.
Scott is involved in doing an admiralty habeas corpus too at this time which he started in April 2015. I'm hoping that the common law administrative judgment we already have will make his admiralty habeas corpus moot.
I'm not so sure if I want to give corrlinks.com all my information. I suppose if I gave a phony address Scott wouldn't be able to reply to my letters ?? I'm surprised they didn't ask for a social security number too.
Kurt and Scott should of studied Zen instead of religion.
"The art of the sly man is to make no contest, but simply to leave without one word. In other words, that's the meaning of wu wei in the technical vocabulary of Daoism. Wu wei- not to interfere, not to force things- that's the best translation--wu wei, not to force things." Alan Watts
As far as I know they were only allowed to plead guilty or not guilty. But still they could have plead no contest, by remaining silent and not taking any stand. Just shut up and let the drama unfold...
as far as yo no, they didnt even haft to plea. just remain psilint. :x
The plea is probably irrelevant because the court had no jurisdiction in the first place.
Corrlinks only gets your email address, and mailing address, no SS#
They could have been silent, or said they can't plead until jurisdiction is proven on the record, but then the Judge would break the law and plead not guilty for them. That would have been better.
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/07/fools-convicted.html
According to the court, the two set out to sabotage their own case, filing "meaningless and nonsensical documents," wearing prison garb in front of the jury, and making bizarre comments such as asking the jury to "enter a guilty plea for us." The defendants also advanced a "peculiar theory" that "they were 'sentient human beings' distinct from the abstract titles 'Defendants KURT F. JOHNSON AND DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN' as they were referred to in the indictment and court documents." That sounds a lot like the thoroughly dumb "personal sovereignty" arguments that we have seen before, and although you have to wonder whether people making these arguments are not entirely in touch with reality, the trial judge had these guys were evaluated by a doctor who found neither one was suffering from a mental disorder. But on appeal - after an unsurprising conviction - they argued that the district court should not have let them represent themselves, as they had demanded, because "their own courtroom behavior rendered their trial unfair."
An interesting case on Federal jurisdiction. Should the plaintiff win, this would prove that the court never had jurisdiction over Kurt & Scott.
On 5/28/2015, Dr. John Parks Trowbridge, Jr wrote:
Confirmed: Landmark Supreme Court petition documents systemic fraud among all federal judges ...
Concealed by a culture of silence and amounting to treason to the Constitution for usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area --
Unlike all other cases taken to the Supreme Court, this Petition is based only on the provisions of the Constitution -- not on any statutes or regulations, not on any district court or appellate court decisions, not on any agency actions or policies or procedures … simply the guarantees of rights protected by the Constitution.
Complete details of landmark case can be seen at
https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com
Landmark Supreme Court Case
May 21, 2015supremecourtcase
Relying on the provisions of the Constitution as ultimate proof, the petition presents incontrovertible evidence that no contemporary federal court has jurisdiction anywhere within the exterior limits of any of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union.
This means that federal law is enforceable only in the District of Columbia and the Territories—and every United States District Judge in every United States District Court throughout the Union is usurping exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area and culpable for treason to the Constitution:
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. . . .” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).
THERE IS NO ONE ON EARTH WHOSE LIFE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SITUATION.
* * *
1 – Supreme Court No. 14-1305, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed April 29, 2015
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/1-supreme-court-no-...
2 – ‘Petition,’ ‘writ,’ and ‘certiorari’ defined
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/2-petition-writ-and...
3 – Proof of Service on Solicitor General – April 29, 2015
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/3-proof-of-service-...
4 – Solicitor General waives right to file response – May 12, 2015
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/4-solicitor-general...
5 – Update – May 18, 2015
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/5-update-may-18-201...
6 – Supreme Court Docket – May 19, 2015
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/6-supreme-court-doc...
7 – Update – May 21, 2015
https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/7-update-may-21-201...
dr.john.parks.trowbridge.jr@earthlink.net
dr. ira gilac dont let dem trow yo unda da britch!
...said
btw-- whaver hoppens to....
1) slop
2) jug beans
3) dr. ira gilac
4) ???
whay they all gone?
o an lest us not foogit
not to be cunfuse wit slop
SOP aka son of a profit
rember him? ;-)
he go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back!!
he has emials from mongrel dat goes waaaaaaaaaaaay back to 2005
"Relying on the provisions of the Constitution as ultimate proof, the petition presents incontrovertible evidence that no contemporary federal court has jurisdiction anywhere within the exterior limits of any of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union."
I would bet that no Supreme Court has jurisdiction anywhere either. I would also bet no Supreme Court judge as a valid oath either.
And what about the Supreme Court judge who will rule on that case? Does he/she have jurisdiction to hear and rule on it? No supreme court judge with an improper oath has any business making decisions on constitutional matters.
Improper oath
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Proper oath:
I, A.B., do solemnly swear of affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
1 Stat.
Be it enacted by the Senate and [House] Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit: I, A.B., do solemnly swear of affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
Sec. 4 And be it further enacted, That all officers, or hereafter to be appointed under the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective offices, take the same oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective oaths of office.
Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, knew even before it happened that the original constitution would be no more because the defacto government, ushered in right after the Civil war the UNITED STATES incorporation that was created in 1871 with Washington DC as the head,. no longer the united States of America as our republican government would be overthrown that our forefathers created. We don't talk about our republican form of government do we anymore. We talk about DEMOCRACY as our form of government. There's our first clue something went wrong along the way.
Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, prophesied, It's not his belief, it's the word of the Lord. Also ask yourself were these crimes against the Mormon Saints addressed with justice? Nope! because they weren't, most of the Mormon saints left the corrupt State of Missouri, and traveled to Illinois and then eventually on to Utah where they wouldn't be harmed and harassed anymore. This prophesy was made near the time of his death in 1844 if I'm not mistaken. The irony is that non-members who are ignorant of their true history of this country, who still think that this country practices the real Constitution, use this prophecy to show he wasn't a prophet when in fact this prophesy proves he was a prophet. This prophecy came true only 27 years later in 1871 when the new government was overthrown, no longer a Republic form of government but a government that violated common law. . . Joseph Smith said:
"I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame."
It doesn't take a genius today to realize that this is a true prophecy as our government is corrupt along with the courts today.
______________
"It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he [Joseph] said something like this – that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it."
( Source: Journal of Discourses 6:152 – quoted by Orson Hyde )
Obviously this quote by Orson Hyde refers to our day because the real Constitution was overthrown a long time ago, before I was born.
Here's your third clue: Our own President Bush said, "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper."
Even the uneducated deep down feel that something is seriously wrong with this country.
The real patriots of long ago must be real frustrated and angry if they can see what has happened to this country since 1871. They'd be "rolling over in their graves in disgust".
da cuntstichun like a cuntrack of at ease on, only appys to dose dat singed, er sung it. it dunt appy to reglar fokes like yo an eye
Why would the Constitution have any value if it was only for the signers of it? It wouldn't have any value, and wouldn't be enshrined at Washington DC if that were true and these men would not have given up their lives and risked their freedoms if it was meant only for them. Most of the signers met a bad end or fate for signing that document, and signing it was the worst thing that they could have done for themselves. So the point it, it wasn't meant only for them.
It was meant to be the Bible for the new government in 1789. It was intended to give unalienable rights to the people, not just to a select few. Most believe the constitution to be an inspired document. If your thinking is true, than that makes God a respector to persons, only giving a select few these rights and freedoms. I can't buy your assumption. It's an assumption to deceive and mislead people and it demeans the value of the document too.
no one can sign away someone elses rights, nor can anyone 'buy' someone else rights, ie sign for them.
the document they signed is an agreement on how they should act, but it was not a contract of adhesion for the ppl they signed for, only an individual can sing for himself.
you dont have to beleive it, but thats how the world runs, everythng is a contract of adhesion, and in fact thats why you basically have no righgt cept for the ones that the ptb selectively choose to give you. and thats why we are where we are today with basically no rights.
and before you say that you can sign for me, where did i give the signers of the con'tn a 'power of attorney'?
fact is, i did not and niehter did you so it doesnt apply to us and thats proven in every court case, wehre you youself wuould admit that we are under admiraly law.
That's right. The Constitution is a contract how they should act, not how I should act.
yes, so where they do not acct correctly you can theorically sue them for 'performance' or acdtually 'fail to performance'
only pormblem with that is, is that they signed themselves to 'immunity' from that.
so they got yo one way the other.
Still don't see how a document written over 200 years ago can regulate a person's behavior let alone a document written today. The constitution is just a frame, or structure in general upon which future governments can act. Human beings, being what the are, can interpret it any way they want. That's where the deception is. The frame is there but the picture of a constitutional government in the minds of politicians today is gone. Only the frame remains.
So how did that common law writ of habeas corpus work out?
Dr. Caligari: The chief judge of California is receiving a "writ of mandamus" this week to act according to the law that has been already ajudicated All 4 defendants have been put in default, namely (1) Judge Alusp, (2) Matthew Ernst, the FBI agent, (3) The US Marshall, and (4) the US Attorney, and there is a default judgment against all of them showing that the due process rights of Kurt & Scott have been violated, and a memorandum of law to support their release from prison, supporting the writ of habeas corpus too.
We are still trying to get a hearing scheduled to discuss all of these matters with chief Judge Hamilton of the Northern District of California, to learn why she is not in contempt of the "foreign judgment", the order of the common law grand jury, for not following the law to set Kurt & Scott free. The Judge cannot do whatever she wants in this situation.
I believe Judge Phyllis Hamilton is testing to see how NLA is going to react and probably has been ignoring us, but that can't continue too much longer, as something needs to give to prevent other possible sanctions in the possible future.
Justification: "If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction."
Ramsey v. Allegvie, supra; p. 411.
It's still a waiting game at this point in time unfortunately. NLA is trying to exhaust all of their administrative remedies I'm sure before taking it to the next level.
Persistant Pays:
I cannot agree with you based upon these comments from a Supreme Court Chief Justice at the turn of the century:
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."
--Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.
There is more at this site:
http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/id71.html
You can choose which status you are, a slave being a US Citizen, or a State Citizen, with Constitutional Rights. There are two governments at work, it's your choice.
It's not that since you aren't a signer to the Constitution that it's meaningless to you, as that's a pernicious doctrine.
Mandamus: "an extraordinary writ issued from a court to an official compelling performance of an act which the law recognizes as a duty.
It is extraordinary in the sense that it is used only when all other judicial remedies have failed or are inadequate. 9 F. Supp. 422, 423. It is an emergency writ. 74 P. 695, 501.
So Dr. Caligari: Things are working out quite well thus far. The perpetrators are losing their grip. I expect things to get much better as time goes on. It's just a matter of time that Kurt & Scott will go free. It's not going to be a lengthy process We've already won, we're just trying to enforce the victory as the paper trail says they were put in prison wrongfully and there's memorandum of law to support this and a judgment. The admiralty court proceeding is meaningless, however, even if you look at the admiralty court record, it's obvious that Kurt & Scott were railroaded, and the court never had jurisdiction and they were political prisoners, and the charges were bogus, not to mention the sentencing which didn't even follow the Courts own sentencing rules correctly. Should Dr. John Parks Trowbridge, Jr. win his case in the Supreme Court proving the limited jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, this will be just one more nail in their coffin.
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202713264993/Northern-District-Chief-Judge-Phyllis-Hamilton?slreturn=20150803205005
"First woman judge of color, Judge Phyllis Hamilton, to lead the Northern District Court".
Now, I know what it means, when one says, the case was decided based upon "color of law." LOL
Give the Judge a call or write her a letter & ask her why she is not following the law to release Kurt & Scott.
If she gets a 100 calls, or a 100 letters, maybe she'll get the message to do her job:
Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton
Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 3 - 3rd Floor
1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-637-1296
Remember the movie with Tim Robbins where he was in prison for allegingly murdering his wife, and he wrote for 3 years to get money and books for the prison library, and they finally relented and gave him $500 to stop the letters from coming and having to open up 2-3 letters every week. There's a lesson in persistence there. Ask and ye shall be given, but you might have to do alot of asking.
Well if enough people call every day asking questions why she is not following the law, and releasing Kurt & Scott, maybe she'll get the message and do the right thing sooner?
as a non singer of the 'c' it still deosnt appl;y to anyone standing in/before a court/judge
tahts why the judge doesnt have to follow it.
it is a doucment that states what right shouuld be given you but there is no remedy for not doing so.
evidnece: all the ppl locked up 'illegally' including kirk and scoot
lookint, the whole thing is coming down anyway, whtehr from this case or others
a whole bunch of factors are involved inlcuding but not limited to...
cosmic incoming energy, wave 'X'
shmittah year/joobilee year
imf meettings this month
poop coming to usa
brics taking down the dollar
china flexing mussels like shellfish
etc, ect, etx,
yo name it, tis happening in sept.
including capt. kirk will get his enterprise back, ie, freedom
either way da poop gonna come here an tell a 'pubic offshall' that they must follow his papal BULL, and dat aint no sheet!!
all law comes from roman curia and they will be held accoutnalbe fro crimes agaisnt humanity in the intl court of natural justice
that too will get them free
Give the Judge a call or write her a letter & ask her why she is not following the law to release Kurt & Scott.
If she gets a 100 calls, or a 100 letters, maybe she'll get the message to do her job:
_________________
What is her job? Is her job constitutional, are her job duties constitutional? Had she read and understood the document she swore an oath to support she would have known her job and job duties were unconstitutional. But she didn't sign a proper oath, so in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter how she performs her job as long as she doesn't perform it constitutionally. lol
Proper (meaning most effective)
Improper (meaning useless; futile; inefficient; not producing results)
Thus, judges with improper oaths are useless, inefficient, incompetent, and incapable.
This Supreme Court Judge understood that the Supreme Law of the Land is still the original Constitution of 1787:
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."
--Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.
and thats exactly what happened. all this goobleygook BS from SC jugs and nothing happens.
and they know it too!!
they can talk all the sheet they want.
lol :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40hzpnDP2E4
Deliberate implosion of US economy - Former Bush Sec. of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts VIDEO (MUST HEAR)
August 10, 2015
At 13:58 to 15:50 she talks about material omission in the mortgage contract and that and how the bank doesn't disclose all the details in order for one to make an informed decision. But material omission is built into the system. Federal reserve notes are not money and they don't tell you they are not money because if they told you they are not money you wouldn't want them would you? Same for the mortgage contract. If they disclosed all the sordid details of the contract, you wouldn't want the contract.
The federal reserve system is fraud. Fraud (material omission) is built-in to the system. Federal reserve notes are not money and the only reason they pass as money is because everyone agrees they are money. Nobody realizes FRNS are not money because everyone agrees they are.
People will always be defrauded for as long as they believe FRNS are real money.
I have no money. Nobody has money. Anyone or anything coming after me demanding money from me, guess what? I don't have any.
http://scannedretina.com/2014/08/27/common-law-grand-jury-orders-to-all-federal-judges/
The 50 united States are not geographically within the district of Columbia as fiction would have some believe. We the People are not a commodity, merchandise or cattle as fiction would have some believe. We the People are not subjects or indentured servants of the fictional
9 A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Exparte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.
10 Article VI Section 2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
11 Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;
12 Article III Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…
All magistrate/judges are to obey the “law of the land,” i.e. common law, specifically defined in the Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI Clause 2.
All federal, state, county, city, town, and villages judges/magistrates are to obey under penalty of 18 USC §2071, 13 law of the land, and are not to conceal, remove, mutilate any record,
13 18 USC § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Act of Congress under the Constitution”. U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28
U.C.A. 1344] [Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)]
“The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution.” [Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]
“A court of record is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial.” [Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per
Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689].
“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it;” [Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [412 U.S. 218, 255]; SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) 412 U.S. 218]
Federal judges do not have discretionary powers in courts of law; their positions are that of magistrate, they are not the tribunal, a written decision by a district judge proves it not to be a court of record.9
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMON LAW GRAND JURY:
Quoting the case United States v. Williams,16 Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said: “Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside no supervisory judicial authority exists. Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, 17 the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right, 18 In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.19 Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length.
TAXES: A MORAL ISSUE by Charles Weisman
The main reason taxes exist today is not to finance the government, for they can obtain all the paper money they want for free. The main reason taxes exist today is to cover up the FRAUD and FICTITIOUS WEALTH of the paper money. The psychology behind it is that if people think the tax is real, they then will think paper bills are real money with real value. (Remember, paper money does not have intrinsic value within itself).
A secondary reason for the tax is to control people. People will tend to accept paper bills, because of their convenience, and will then become dependent on them. Since a corporation controls the issuance of the notes, they in turn control the people that are dependent on them. "Taxes" are imposed on the American people to control them by taxing away the medium of exchange (purchasing power) they become dependent upon - thus impoverishing America into a third-rate slave nation.
A third reason for the present "income tax" is to serve as a means to collect information on those who it is imposed. In June, 1985, IRS officials delivered a secret 200 page, "Five Year Plan" to Congress after denying its existence for more than a year. The IRS Strategic Plan calls for their organizing and building a personal information file on every taxpayer, just like the plan Joseph Stalin used. This file includes all the public information about each taxpayer plus all the private information about each taxpayer plus all the private information on him they they can get.
"The psychology behind it is that if people think the tax is real, they then will think paper bills are real money with real value. (Remember, paper money does not have intrinsic value within itself)."
_______________________
The same can be said for the 16th Amendment, the Social Security system, the tax system, the mortgage system, etc. Since people think they are real then it follows that federal reserve notes must be real too.
That woman who is now in jail for refusing to issues marriage licenses to homosexuals,she's claiming the Bible supersedes the Constitution. Well, guess what? The Bible doesn't supersede the Constitution because there's no such thing as license in the Bible. Both Bible and the Constitution are in conflict with that job. She doesn't understand the Bible nor the Constitution. You cannot properly defend yourself if you do not understand what you are doing.
They will probably assign the duty of issuing marriage licenses to another employee. But what about her other duties, like recording IRS liens? What does the Constitution and Bible say about that? Nothing, because the system was not designed with the Constitution or Bible in mind.
lol!! the woman, like many others all sudden 'found god' or maybe say 'found gog' lol
she been marred 3x already and now gonna jude others, rite!!
fact is, she shuold just shut up and do job.
futher, shes an idoit, or dont it too.
cause if ppl like her in offshal postions start respecting religion, then wha hoppens when someone of anther religion get in office.
'sorry, but my relgion say if yo wanna get marred, i goota chop yo haid off first'
sorry, my relgion says dats wha i goota do or if not, i goes to jayle. i gotta follwo my relgion ova da law. relgion comes first.
and for ppl like this idiot woman, thats exactly why some ppl say that christians are the most dangerous ppl on the planet.
honestly, i rather be locked up in a room with a 100 budhas or even muslims than 100 christians. at least with the ohters, i know where i stand, but with christains, they fasley beleive as even the bable will tell you...
"...come the day that (christains) will put you out of the church and kill yo...
THINKING THAT THEY ARE DOING GODS WORK
So somehwo they feel that they have immunity if in their corrupted minds, killing is doing gods work.
as eveidence, all the soliders in the middle east are all christains killing others for the "G" of courst they do this thinking...
THEY ARE DOING GODS WORK
christain soliders in iraq and the ME have killed more innnocent victims than any religon on the planten THINKING THEY ARE DOING GODS WORK
....nausea :P
and lest anynun be confused, i believe in christ, its christains that i am not too fond of. becase of the above reason, they feel that they can just do what they like if in THEIR mind...
THEY ARE DOING GODS WORK
o course....right now, 99.999% of chrisains are in name only
like good ole' SOP use to say
what are they missing??
the HS
REMBER HIM???
just about gone from the planten right now....
Aries: Here's something to ask David Young.
Here's something that David Young said to do in order to cancel your debt obligation at closing. Course if you do what he says, wouldn't the closing agent not send the check to the seller on a purchase or the check to you 3 days later on a refinance when they find out that you endorsed your own promissory note? Don't know why you would need to endorse the mortgage or deed of trust though as he instructs as mortgages aren't monetized like notes are. Wouldn't you endorsing your own promise to pay (the note) just cause the bank to not be able to sell the note as it's payable to you, or how does that work? And if the "originating lender" can't sell the note, because it's endorsed over to the borrower, then why would the lender write a check to the seller if you are buying a house or why would the bank send a check to you, if you are doing a refinance on the house? Surely the attorney for the bank or escrow officer will catch this endorsement on the paperwork? So why does David Young think this scheme will work of endorsing the note at closing to eliminate your debt? Doesn't the endorsement just prove that the borrower is the source of funds, and the real creditor in the loan transaction and the one creating the funds for the bank to loan, because the bank is just going to deposit the promissory note, since the "pay to the order" endorsement changed the instrument from a promise to pay to a negotiable instrument that can be banked and monetized, thereby creating a deposit at the bank called, "checkbook money" which is the real source of the bank loan.. These funds were created by your signature and your willingness to go into debt. This deposit increases the reserves at the bank. The fact that the lender will probably forbid this allonge or endorsement proves that the bank has no money to lend & doesn't provide any money to lend, otherwise, why would the bank care if you put an allonge on the original paperwork? Has anyone ever done this before and were actually successful in cancelling their debt at closing?
Since there is a deposit at the bank now, due to the altered promissory note, due to the allonge, thus creating a negotiable instrument, the bank can now write a check or wire funds since a newly created deposit is there covering the bank's check or bank wire, as banks can't legally loan their own money according to the law, they need to create money, nor can they create credit legally. It's the borrower that always creates the credits at the bank by his signature on the promissory note. I don't know what he means when he says "the signature funds the mortgage lien." Mortgage liens aren't funded, only promissory notes endorsed are banked & funded in the sense that newly created money is brought into existence in the so called lending process scheme.
Do you think David Young means since the note can't be sold, since the borrower is unquestionably the holder in due course of it, since THE ORIGINAL NOTE IS NOW payable to the borrower, then no one can come in & claim interest in your home because without the original note signed over to someone than that someone cannot legally claim that the deed of trust is effective & legal because separation of the note voids the mortgage & besides the borrower owns the note because it's payable to him now. Maybe that's what David Young means. I guess the question is would this scheme in reality really work? And wouldn't you just have to redo the paperwork before anything is finally closed? Banks really aren't that careless are they? Isn't this just a 1 in a 100 shot hoping the bank wouldn't catch this endorsement after the fact & after the alleged loan is funded?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Closing - How to Cancel Out a Debt
we just made an offer on a house in las vegas ...how do i get to sign the back of the
promissory note??? what if they dont allow it?
also it might help to know that we got FHA loan..please HELP
Reply · 1
______________________________________
David Young 5 months ago
Hello TheVikolavoice, On the last page of the Mortgage Promissory Note and the Mortgage Lien Contract, write:
Pay To The Order Of
Without Recourse
Place your autograph here
Print your name
Make sure you receive a Copy from the attorney or closing agent of your signed Note and Mortgage.
HEY!!!!!! It is YOUR Note and Mortgage CONTRACTS and YOU are writing them, the maker and Granter, with your signature.
Your signature funds the note and mortgage lien.
The Pretender Lender/Bank just created these documents!
WARNING!!
DO NOT TRY THE ABOVE AT HOME!!
it will just get you locked up like Capt. Kirk and Eng Scotty
fact is, there will be debt forgiveness, and prospeirty prpgrams and rv but right now, esp. this month, EVERYTHING is on LOCKDOWN.
dont try anything foolish.
On the last page of the Mortgage Promissory Note and the Mortgage Lien Contract, write: Pay To The Order Of
Without Recourse
Place your autograph here
Print your name
______________________
I don't think the bank will allow you write that anywhere on PN. They will refuse to do business with you if you do. Someone has already tried something similar- i.e, they tried writing the phrase "All Rights Reserved" or "Without Prejudice" under the signature line and the bank refused to do business with them. It's obvious they are not interested in protecting your rights or interest in the property. It's all abut them not about you.
All rights reserved accomplishes little. Constitutional rights are not waived because you don't stamp or assert something like, "without prejudice" or " all rights reserved, which is essentially the same thing. All rights reserved is not going to cancel your debt.
And I can't see how endorsing the note constitutes any criminal offense that is going to get you locked up.
I see the bank just asking you to redo the paperwork, or they might decide not to do business with you, but they aren't the only bank in town.
Mogel007 "All rights reserved is not going to cancel your debt."
And writing "Without Recourse" is not going to cancel the the debt either. You can write it on the back of a check, but it doesn't mean anything on a PN. Writing "Without Recourse" on the back of a check means that if for some reason the FRNS are not there (even after the bank has verified the FRNS are there) the bank can't go after you (the payee) for the FRNS. That's all it means.
I've got more to say about this, but have run out of time... later
All rights reserved accomplishes little. Constitutional rights are not waived because you don't stamp or assert something like, "without prejudice" or " all rights reserved, which is essentially....
preserves any right you may have unwittingly signed away in a contract of adhesion, due to non full disclosure.
has nothing to do with con'tl rights
It has everything to do with constitutional rights, because you can't waive them because of some adhesion contract, which is illegal by nature anyway.
What does it say, "unalienable rights", which means they can't be liened or encroached upon.
OMO: I didn't say that,
I said, "pay to the order of" and your name signed , assigns the note back to you, but of course you don't understand that, among many things.
The allonge assigns the note, this puts the title of the note back to you, the borrower. That's how notes are assigned & sold with the allonge. "Without prejudice" only means you are reserving your rights. I never said that "without prejudice" cancels the debt. Why are you always assuming things that other people don't say?
If no one can own the note because you've put an allonge on it, no one is going to be able to show that they are the holder in due course of the debt, as the original note only show you as the last holder and assignee, so there is no debt owed to some other entity, so there is no debt to cancel, it's cancelled because you are the owner of the note which is assigned to your name. This isn't rocket science. What part of that do you not understand?
"All rights reserved" has everything to do with constitutional rights.
What rights do you think that you are holding on to? Statutory rights? LOL
And I've never seen or heard of anyone going to jail for putting an allonge on a note, unless of course that note was stolen.
You're the maker and owner of the note, are you not? It's your property is it not?
Can you do whatever you want with your own property within reason? They didn't provide any consideration for the note, did they?
That's like saying you made a check out to a company, and then decided not to do business with the company and then crossed out the companies name, as the payee and just decided to deposit the money order into your checking account. What's the difference? Are you going to jail for doing that? Course not.
If the note has not been accepted by the bank with their allonge, then the agreement hasn't been solidified yet, would you agree? There still is a 3 day right of rescission on the loan, is there not? So if you stamp the note with an allonge, payable to you, how is that illegal? The bank might consider such an action a rescission of the loan anyway, assuming they catch it. Course the so called loan hasn't even taken place yet, because I doubt if the bank cheque has been sent if the note hasn't been stamped yet by the lender. Seems to me they have to put the allonge on it first before they can sell the note, and aren't the notes usually sold within 3 days of the borrower signing all the paperwork anyway to correspond with the time frame of the right of rescission? I don't believe they can sell the note with the allonge showing it's payable to you, the borrower.
So taking all of those facts into consideration, isn't the debt cancelled? There's no proof that you owe a debt. It appears on the note due to the allonge as if you purchased the note. Who can say you owe a debt and where's the proof?
It has everything to do with constitutional rights, because you can't waive them because of some adhesion contract, which is illegal by nature anyway.
any right can be waived. you have that right to waive your rights.
and
"All rights reserved" has everything to do with constitutional rights.
What rights do you think that you are holding on to? Statutory rights? LOL
what does cont't'l rights have to do with a courtroom?? that goes by admiralty law?
ans. nothing LOL
and thats why all these theories dont work and ppl wind up in jail for trying them.
yes, they let a few go free and appear to 'beat the sytem' only serves to bait more fools into trying. so for everyone who is successful, word gets out and anther 1000 fools will try it and get themselves locked up
1000:1 is good odds they see
Yea and if they violate your constitutional rights, you can sue them under Title 42 and the Judges know this.
Tom Shauf originally had a great idea. Pay the lender off in the same specie of money that they gave you, an IOU. So pay off the debt with another debt, a negotiable security instrument (promissory note). He didn't have all of the pieces to the puzzle to make this theory work, but I think I've figured it out and it won't land me in jail as it's an acceptable tender which can be enforced. A tender is an offer that the borrower can make, in which the lender is obligated to accept. And furthermore it's illegal for the lender to demand a specific payment of tender, namely US Currency or federal reserve notes.
MAIL FRAUD AND FRAUD IN THE FACTUM
The PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that there is no evidence that the continued billing by the DEFENDANTS to send out bills to the PLAINTIFF that they know are not due since the alleged loan is paid off, does not constitute mail fraud on the part of the DEFENDANTS.
The PLAINTIFF is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that there is no evidence that the original contract was not altered and stolen and that there was an addition to the agreement with the following items: (1) The intent of the agreement is that the original party who funded the alleged loan per the bookkeeping entries is to be repaid the money. (2) The bank or financial institution involved in the alleged loan will follow GAAP. (3) The lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan will purchase the promissory note from the borrower. (4) The borrower does not provide any money, money equivalent credit, funds or capital or thing of value that a bank or financial institution will use to give value to a check or similar instrument. (5) The borrower is to repay the loan in the same specie of money or credit that the bank or financial institution used to fund the loan per GAPP, thus ending all interest and liens, and (6) The written agreement gives full disclosure of all material facts. Do you see the bankers fear? If DEFENDANTS claim item # 1 is false, then it is a swindle. If item # 2 is false, then it is illegal. If item # 3 and # 4 is false, the bank (DEFENDANTS) invested nothing, it was stolen or paid nothing for it, and PLAINTIFF funded the loan. If # 5 is false, then the bank admits it is a money changer and charged as if there was a loan. If # 6 is false, then DEFENDANTS agree that they concealed material facts.
and its done everday.
show me the list of successful lawsuits against judges??? for violation of c-rights when a courtroom it doesnt apply?
they are under admiralty law, rember?
again, all goobleygook taht doesnt works.
and if yo piss them enuf, they lock yo up.
You can find where I got the following from by googling Dan Meador Strawman Response 2/1/2000
Dan Meador:
"My problem with UCC remedies is that the Uniform Commercial Code is patently unconstitutional. Under "color of law," it accommodates private bills of credit, prohibited by Article I § 10 of the U.S. Constitution, and sundry other unconstitutional measures, including due process in the course of the civil law.
When you ask what I think of Larry's case cites, I'm reminded of a response in "Without Malice" when a fellow reporter asked Sally Fields if she was involved with Paul Neuman. The response was something to the effect of, "Yes, that's true, but not accurate."
I'm of the opinion that Larry has every intention of being helpful in order to protect people in the patriot/constitutionalist community from harm. I believe cites he offers to support cautions are faithfully reproduced. But I also believe National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc., demonstrates the extremely difficult situation we're in with respect to relying on judicial decisions. Are we dealing with truth or political agenda?
I've received what I believe are legitimate reports of successful UCC defenses in some jurisdictions. However, I know of cases where UCC defenses have been ignored, and judges have made examples of those trying to use them. Consequently, my notion is that whoever employs a UCC defense does so at his own risk, whether it is "legally" correct or not. "
courts use admiralty law.
admiralty law preceded the 'c' thus cannot be superceded by it. also becase of it, courts are of intntl jurisdiction, whethter this is admtted or not, thus agian, the 'C' has no relevance inside a coatroom
Dan Meador con't
My disposition is this: I am inclined to be cautious. If I don't understand something, I normally won't use it. To date, I haven't used any of the UCC remedies other than an adaptation of the "notice of nonappearance," and I employed that only because I was prepared to fight the fight on more substantial grounds.
Now, let's address the Straw Man matter: Who and what is the Straw Man (i.e., JOHN DOE instead of John Doe)?
Read definitions at 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The definitions include "commercial name", "trade name", "juristic name", etc. In this section, you find that a government officer or employee functions in a commercial capacity. After considerable research, I am convinced that the Straw Man, i.e., JOHN DOE, is employed in order to create the presumption that whoever is named is a government officer or employee.
really interesting court summary of someone who tried using the CFR 72 ch 27.1 'when all crime is commercial' defense in a courtromm.
what happened? we all know is simple, ie when all crime is commercial, then all crime is commerical, right? wrong! not in a courtroom its not.
when A
-----------------------
In support of his contention that the criminal
proceeding against him is
really a civil proceeding, Mr. Nóbrega
cites 27 C.F.R. § 72.11
Commercial Crimes: Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or
State): Offenses against the revenue law; burglary; counterfeiting;
forgery; kidnapping; larceny;
robbery
; illegal sale or possession of
deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring,
pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses);
extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit,
conspiring t
o commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes.
Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if
such were commercial crime.
27 C.F.R. § 72.11
;
see
Aff. of Silence
at 13
.
Mr. Nó
brega apparently reads this
regulation as establishing that the crime of possession of a firearm of which he
stands convicted,
is really a commercial crime and since commercial crimes must
apply only to corporations, there is no legal authority for the Gov
ernment to proceed
against him for a violation of criminal law.
JUDGE:
Mr. Nóbrega is simply wrong......
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Woodcock/2012/JAW_06012012_1-10cr186_USA_V_NOBREGA.pdf
OR WHEN ALL REALLY MEANS SOME
"admiralty law preceded the 'c' thus cannot be superceded by it."
Prove it.
Constitutional law came from God. God therefore proceeded admiralty law. God is the law giver.
That's like saying the Law of Moses, preceded the Law Of Christ, so that means I should poke your eye out, and stone you to death first, instead of turn the other cheek, forgive you, and love my brother.
See how ridiculous your argument is?
Sin proceeded the atonement, therefore, let's throw out the atonement of Christ too.
Sin brought the penalty of death into the world, so the law of sin & death has power over the law of the resurrection of mankind too.
See how ridiculous your logic is? It's actually an Anti-Christ doctrine originated by the Devil himself that you are defending.
Look they can lock you up for any reason. They can lock you up for doing nothing amiss. If they want to lock you up, then you'll be there. You know the FEMA camps are waiting for people like you. Do you plan to submit?
Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death"?
You're going to be afraid to do anything due to fear of being locked up? That's why all 4 Dorean Brokers that were indicted eventually copped a plea. Fear of standing their ground, fear of holding on to what they believed. Besides the 4 Dorean Brokers were charged with a different conspiracy (5 years) than Kurt & Scott which conspiracy carried 20 years. How ridiculous is that? They all pled to a different conspiracy, when if there was a conspiracy, it could have only been the same conspiracy.
National Liberty Alliance (NLA) has taken on a writ of habeas corpus for 4 people now. Two of them were set free. That's a 50% success ratio thus far. Should be 100% success rate soon. There are a 100 more cases they want to file.
We need more patriots to stand up to the corrupt government wherever we find it.
You think Judges don't get arrested or don't get found out? LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jXDGlx4XRA
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/judge-joe-brown-jailed-tennessee/story?id=23042084
http://abcnews.go.com/US/philadelphia-traffic-judges-accused-playing-favorites/story?id=18371780
Here's the perfect example of two Judges getting many years in prison for violating young people's constitutional rights:
http://www.examiner.com/article/pennsylvania-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-prison-for-selling-teens-to-prisons
I would assume there was an easy winnable open & shut Title 42 action against the one Judge because one mother's son committed suicide after being put in jail wrongfully by the one Judge that got over 20 years.
I don't need to search the many cases where people have prevailed on a Title 42 lawsuit. Title 42 lawsuits ruin the careers of Judges, police, and any government official that has violated his oath. You see once the lawsuit is filed, the government official is told not to come to work until everything is settled. That's how it works.
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/DanMeador.htm
Application for Writ of Hab. Corpus
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Forms/schc.htm
4. The Constitution for the united States of America vests authority in a governmental agency identified and stipulated as the "United States", not the "United States of America". The entity, "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", being a political coalition or compact of United States territories and insular possessions, quasi-interdependent commonwealths, and United Nations trust
territories, is known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, with said territories, insular possessions, commonwealths, trust territories, etc., which are not incorporated as integral parts of the United States (Downes v. Bidwell (1901) 182 U.S. 244, 45 L.Ed. 1088, 21 S.Ct. 770; Dorr v. United States (1904) 195 U.S.
138, 49 L.Ed. 128, 24 S.Ct. 808, Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922) 258 U.S. 298, 66 L.Ed. 627, 42 S.Ct. 343; Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945) 324 U.S. 652, 89 L.Ed. 1252, 65 S.Ct. 870, reh den 325 U.S. 892, 89 L.Ed. 2004, 65 S.Ct. 1198), subject to authority of the President in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the military in the name of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (see 48 U.S.C. §§ 874 & 1406f);
5. In the alternative, the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" serves as nominee for an unidentified foreign principal, the "Central Authority" or the "Competent Authority" (28 CFR, Part 0.49 or 0.64-1);
6. The "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is not authorized as plaintiff or defendant under provisions of titles 18 or 28 of the United States Code, or § 7325 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large; hereafter, IRC), as amended in 1986 and since.
And I wouldn't be surprised if chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California or even Judge William Alsup, eventually doesn't get arrested over both their treason by ignoring the writ of habeas corpus from a superior court, the (UCLGJ) out of New York thereby keeping Kurt & Scott in prison, thereby ignoring not only the administrative writ of habeas corpus judgment, but also the writ of mandamus that was recently served on her or that was supposed to be served on her.
After that, it's apparent that all the administrative remedies have been exhausted.
So you either put indictments against the conspirators and put them under criminal charges too or you arrest them when you have no other options. Sometimes negotiations and talks come to a point where they are just fruitless.
In sports, if you do anything and are 50% successful at doing it, whether it's getting on base half the time, or shooting basketballs 50% in the hoop from the field, you are at the top of your game and are highly respected.
Should any government worker get arrested, "persistance pays", you will have your proof how effective the common law or constitutional law can be, even with the admiralty courts.
"You're going to be afraid to do anything due to fear of being locked up? "
F**ING EXACTLY!!!
you go be a hero my friend! good lunck!!
let know ho yo make out
i still be on the outside looing in LOL
You're going to be afraid to do anything due to fear of being locked up?
thats gotta be just one of the STUPIDEST comments that ive ever seen on this blog.
why not just rob a bank instead? its a whole lot easer and you know if you gonna be successful right away rather than wait for years.
oop! i too scarred to rob a bank becase i might get looked up!!
GOOD REASON!!! duh..........
Robbing a bank isn't a crime if nobody got hurt. In reality the only people who are "hurt" by the activities of robbing a bank are the "powers that be" because they have an interest in banks. Otherwise it's not a crime to rob a bank. It's a crime only because the "powers that be" say it is.
Here's something that relates to the question: "You're going to be afraid to do anything due to fear of being locked up?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3sqRSzGXV0&index=1&list=LLuJT9_j76nS2jbFS-IWvRrQ
52:00
"Obviously many questions remain. If these data are correct, and if one or more governments really do know about the anomalies on the bottom of the ocean as representing evidence of past and technologically advance human civilization on earth why would a government want to keep this secret and why hasn't everyone learned about this previously in school and in the media? The answer to this should be pretty obvious of giving this some thought.
We live in a world where there is a tremendous amount of suppressed information. Some of the so-called “powers that be” may know about this ancient civilization but they would have an interest in keeping this information out of the public realm. Why? Because if there is one thing the “powers that be” do not want it is the for people to rise up and tell them that they can't do something that they (the “powers that be”) otherwise would want to do. You can see this in everything from the development of genetically modified food to the construction of unsafe nuclear power facilities. Right or wrong authorities everywhere don't like it when others interfere with their activities. Long ago science gone bad ripped this planet apart in the past and secrecy-cloaked science could do it again. That is why the “powers that be” don't want this to be taught in our schools. It would be a lesson in not trusting the authorities and, the authorities fear that they could lose their ability to control their own agenda."
Otherwise it's not a crime to rob a bank. It's a crime only because the "powers that be" say it is.
eggsacky! ho haft da gold make da rooles.
so again, why do anyfin dat will get yo loked up?
dont matta wether right or not, why get luked up?
i like gong to a basebull game now then
cant do dat if yo looked up.
maybe in da poison yard wit udder innates but dat no gook
so again, why do anyfin dat will get yo loked up?
Because it's not a crime to challenge the mortgage industry. It's not a crime to challenge the IRS, it's not a crime to challenge the Federal Reserve System we all live under.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Justice Dept. sets sights on Wall Street Criminals:
http://tinyurl.com/oqdpkar
You're going to be afraid to do anything due to fear of being locked up?
That statement was said in the context of standing up for the right things.
Apparently I hit a nerve with you.
It's not stupid at all to be honorable, rather than hiding in the closet.
eggsacky! ho haft da gold make da rooles.
According to Karen Hudes, we the people have the gold and the wealth of the world.
We have more wealth than what we owe the Federal Reserve according to Karen Huedes.
We are more powerful than we think, and according to her, "the rule of law" will prevail, not the bankers ability to steal from us.
Really tired of hearing that we are doomed.
There are trusts set up for the people that exceeds 2 quadrilliion dollars.
If you don't accept that, then you believe that Karen Huedes is a liar.
The first idea I gave which was actually Tom Shauf's original idea of paying a note off with giving another note is legal, and is not going to get you locked up in prison. Why you assumed the worst is beyond me. Just because it's relatively a liberal or new idea, shouldn't be interpreted as the government is going to go after you & lock you up. I've already done it, and I'm still free, no visit by the FBI. Not sure how the bank is going to react, as I'm following all of this up with a notarial protest, however, the note called for the bank to pick up the first payment at my residence which they haven't done, and the date is past, and I can only conclude that they took the note, accepted it because they didn't timely dishonor it, & sold the note for value, which according to the terms of the agreement I wrote up, the debt is discharged or there was no debt in the first place.
Tender is justified and legal: Tender in terms of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881; Public Law 73-10, Chapt. 48, 48 Stat 112; 12 U.S. 411, Securities Act 411; Securities Act 2(1); 3(a)(3); Congressional Statutes at large, Title 62; UCC Congressional Legislative Positive banking Law, 12 USC 1813(L), 12USC 93a, Hague Treaty, Geneva Treaty, United Nations Treaty, and Public Policy and settlement in terms of the United States Supreme High Court of Justice, just to name a few laws that show my actions are legal.
Kind of difficult to put you in jail when you are just following the law in order to discharge a debt the smart way. Who wants to remain a debt slave for 20-30 years?
Who wants to remain in jail for 20-30 years?
Not me!
an karen who this is relly a man.
jus tooks a gook look at?
OMO: Your story of Atlantis is also related to this story of Admiral Byrd's expedition into our earth, which is a "Hollow Earth", not as we are taught, where there exists a sun and warm waters, fruit trees and green vegetation and an advance race of people:
http://ourhollowearth.com/Bernard/Chapter1.htm
"These giants were evidently members of the antediluvian race of Atlanteans who established residence in the Earth's interior prior to the historic deluge that submerged their Atlantic continent."
We shall now quote from Ray Palmer, editor of "Flying Saucers" magazine and a leading American expert on flying saucers, who is of the opinion that Admiral Byrd's discoveries in the Arctic and Antarctic regions offer an explanation of the origin of the flying saucers, which, he believes, do not come from other planets, but from the hollow interior of the earth, where exists an advanced civilization far in advance of us in aeronautics, using flying saucers for aerial travel, coming to the outside of the earth through the polar openings.
ho dis? ho dat? ho?
ho dis = ho dat
mongrel = NOMO
The book, "The Smoky God," describing Olaf Jansen's unusual trip to the hollow interior of the Earth, was published in 1908. It tells about the people who dwell inside the Earth, whom he and his father met during their visit and whose language he learned. He said that they live from 400 to 800 years and are highly advanced in science. They can transmit their thoughts from one to another by certain types of radiations and have sources of power greater than our electricity.
They are the creators of the flying saucers, which are operated by this superior power, drawn from the electromagnetism of the atmosphere. They are twelve or more feet in stature. It is remarkable how this report of a visit to the Earth's interior corresponds with the other described above, yet both were entirely independent of each other. Also the gigantic size of the human beings dwelling in the Earth's interior corresponds to the great size of its animal life, as observed by Admiral Byrd, who, during his 1,700 mile flight beyond the North Pole, observed a strange animal resembling the ancient mammoth.
We shall present later in this book the theory of Marshall Gardner that the mammoths found enclosed in ice, rather than being prehistoric animals, are really huge animals from the Earth's interior who were carried to the surface by rivers and frozen in the ice that was formed by the water that carried them.
The Hollow Earth
Chapter 1:
Admiral Byrd's Epoch-Making Discovery
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds very interesting. Gonna get the book.
Smokey God looks just as interesting...
"Willis George Emerson wrote the Smoky God in 1908. It is subtitled A Voyage to the Inner Earth. Olaf Jansen was a Norwegian sailor who sailed his sloop though an entrance near the North Pole to the earth's interior. This novel is an early example of an underground civilization. Jansen spent two years living with the inhabitants in a network of subterranean colonies. A smoky central sun lighted the world. Their capital city was believed to be the original Garden of Eden."
Kurt & Scott wrongfully charged with "mail fraud" as the statute was intended just for government employees and not the general public:
Page 13: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Forms/schc.htm
Although "mail fraud" is not specifically addressed in this
pleading, as the mail fraud charges were not issued against
Mr. Gunwall, it will be found that via E.O. No. 10289 (1951,
as amended several times since), the President authorized
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General to
prosecute mail-related offenses, but only pertaining to
United States Government employees, not the general public.
This is the only delegation to the Secretary relating to
mail offenses, so where the Internal Revenue Service is the
complaining party, the complaint cannot exceed delegation
from the President to the Secretary under provisions of 3
U.S.C. § 301. Reference 26 CFR, Part 301.7621 to see that
E.O. No. 10289 is the only Executive Order which confers
authority to the Secretary relating to internal revenue
laws, the Anti-Smuggling Act, postal regulations, and other
matters, including establishment of internal revenue
districts. The matter is treated at length infra.
lol! minsta gumwall!!
"Kurt & Scott wrongfully charged with "mail fraud" as the statute was intended just for government employees and not the general public"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, it seems that all their statutes are intended for government employees. The ALL CAP name is the government employee, but we all know how that will go down in a jury trial. The judge instructs the jury how to decide the case and he will not allow the jury to read the statute for themselves.
Dan Meador:
Now, let's address the Straw Man matter: Who and what is the Straw Man (i.e., JOHN DOE instead of John Doe)?
Read definitions at 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The definitions include "commercial name", "trade name", "juristic name", etc. In this section, you find that a government officer or employee functions in a commercial capacity. After considerable research, I am convinced that the Straw Man, i.e., JOHN DOE, is employed in order to create the presumption that whoever is named is a government officer or employee.
To be an employee, you have to be paid.
Show me the money!
To be an employee, you have to be paid.
______________
Yeah, but you first have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the statute applies to government employees. The onus then would be on the government to prove you are a government employee. Of course they can't do it if you are not in fact a government employee.
Anyone who pays taxes today is a government employee. Employment taxes is one way the government is funded and in order to fund the government that way they had to have employees. So everyone who pays taxes via any kind of employment is a government employee. Anyone who is a "person" or "employee" (as defined in the tax code) is also a taxpayer.
Do you have a code cite that says this:
Anyone who pays taxes today is a government employee
No there isn't a code section that specifically states that anyone who pays taxes today is a government employee, but IRS will treat you as one if you file or pay taxes. Act like an employee / person / taxpayer and you will be treated as one. It's all Federal Reserve System stuff. I don't know when the Congress started taxing it's own employees, or where they got the authority to do so, but they have never created codes or statutes for anyone but their own employees.
...they never created statues of their own employess...
wondeer why? maybe they just a bunch of stiffs
But you have to wonder if the income tax is applicable to only a certain number of people then it is unconstitutional for them too because the word income is not defined for them either. I'm not a government employee starts out as a good argument if the tax is lawful for a government employee, but it's not so it isn't.
Employee means government employee. They don't have a definition for private sector employees. Only government employees are taxed. Why ? It's a ruse ( In military deception, a trick of war designed to deceive the adversary, usually involving the deliberate exposure of false information to the adversary [you])
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
All codes are a ruse.
I received this email a few days ago, don't know what to make of it:
Alert! The Death of the Federal Reserve. Finical reset news.
Next Thursday 9-17-2015 the Federal Reserve dies. The new currency is called the TRN. Treasure Reserve Note. It is replacing the currency that is in circulation now. It will be both paper and coin and will be gradually introduce into the system. You will be able to trade your dollars for TRN's. Not sure if it will be one for one though.
My brother works for the financial group that is putting this into place. He just called me to let me know that the financial reset is a done deal.
This is stinky because there is no linky as it hasn't had time to hit LSM. That would be Lame Stream Media. You folks reading this are the first to hear about this. You knew it was coming now it's here. Not in two weeks or next month but now.
looks like it came from here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2953652/pg1
which means it could be rumor or it could be true. ho nose?
godlikeproductions.com forum
Treasure Reserve Note is probably not backed by anything which will be no different from the FRN.
Obviously the FED is not dissolved, because no announcement was made today & if they were dissolved, surely they wouldn't be meeting to decide if interest rates should be increased.
Rumor is 20% of the Treasury Note is backed by assets.
Loved that story, The Smokey God. From my point of view it was an entirely believable story. For those interested, here's a very good review of the book:
http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2012/10/24/olaf-jansen-and-the-smoky-god/
I also agree with what one reviewer from Amazon said:
"Also, the author spends too much time, in my opinion, describing his journey into the earth. It would have been much better if he devoted more chapters to his experience while being inside for 2 years."
Good news folks!!
There is now been created a bank that will accept YOUR own created Promissory Notes to pay off debts!!!
Its called WeRe bank!
http://werebank.com/
Go to the site and READ carefully.
There are even templates for creating your own Promissory Note.
Here: https://www.werebank.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Promissory-Note-A4.pdf
And filled out example here: https://www.werebank.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Promisory-Note-A4-Example.pdf
Financial prosperity is finally here!
/SNIP/
PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS
The WeRe Bank "Triple A" Chequing Account
You must be a member of Re(ReMember) which is the political arm of the movement to gain access to WeRe Bank. WeRe Bank uses the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and other laws relating to Negotiable Financial Instruments to successfully help you eradicate ALL your PUBLIC SECTOR obligations- these are typically STATE imposed unlawful statutory obligations, passed via Secondary or Delegated legislation and Ministers in committees and NOT by Parliament Absolute.
IMPORTANT NOTICE!
Re-Movement provides the facility to open up your own online Bank account. It is important to understand this is a self administrating system, therefor you must have access to the internet to access your account and register your transactions. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING YOUR LEDGER WITH THE NECESSARY INFORMATION YOU WANT US TO VERIFY.
Your membership of ReMovement incorporates: ReWork, ReCall, ReUnion, ReFuel & WeRe Bank and gives you access to Freeman Legal Services
The joining fee for ReMovement is £35, which entitles you to open a WeRe Bank account and receive a cheque book, plus 1st month membership.
Thereafter there is a monthly subscription fee of £10 per month payable quarterly, half yearly or annually.
Monthly subscription fee can be paid with joining fee.
WE DO NOT TAKE INTERNATIONAL POSTAL ORDERS,
WE DON'T TAKE CHEQUES MADE OUT TO ANYONE. IF THEY WISH TO SEND THEM, THEN THEY MUST LEAVE THE PAYEE BLANK. DO NOT MAKE THESE OUT TO Peter of England, Peter OF WERE BANK, WERE BANK etc, as we are not dealing with the banking system other than as a passive force, a defensive force. We cannot use them to CASH and AID us if we are seeking to make then obsolete.
You are required/asked to issue a Promissory Note payable to WeRe Bank up to the sum of £150,000//148,000Re payable “within a 10 year anniversary” from the time of JOINING. The Promissory Note acts as the Bank/collectives/co-operatives REAL ASSETS in the vaults. 148,000 Re units will purchase around £296,000 in sterling priced goods In the private sector.
Once your ReMembership is confirmed and we are in receipt of your Promissory Note you will be issued with your DSC's
Your DSC's (Debt Settlement Cheques) are FREE and will include your NAME, WeRE Account Number and be individually numbered.
Your monthly or annual fee is ReCredited to your WeRe Bank account ensuring that you don’t lose out and that WeRe Bank has ethically converted energy into wealth and NOT just emptily Xeroxed off fiat currency and engaged in Babylonian usurious energy theft.
DSC's books contain 25 cheques and are sufficient to provide the writing of one [1] DSC per week (average) for 6months for the paying of all your PUBLIC liabilities – HMRC, VAT, Council Tax, Speeding and Motoring Fines, all court fines and utilities. Private payments can be made between consenting parties.
The DSC's are logged, verified and cleared against available balances via WeRe Bank – this is all your Payee needs to know.
Additional DSC's can be obtained via the support centre, however there may be an additional charge for excessive use.
Working community banking locations are sought – employees are paid in Re by the hour. Maybe you’d like to set up a WeRe Bank branch in your area?
Re currency is acceptable at all retail establishments displaying the “WeReHeRe” They will accept various percentages of Re – ranging from 10% to 100% on sales of goods & services.
WeRe Bank provides payable hourly employment for all its members as requested.
To setup your account you will need to provide date of birth and first and last initials during registration. So John Henry born 4th March 1985 would have account number: 040385JH, Please follow the instructions on the website and make sure you put comprehensible material into the boxes where asked!
Once your account has been activated, you will be able to join our forum at www.werebank.com/forum details how to register on the forum will be provided in your activation email
To join Re-Movement simply provide us with your Name and email and we will send you an email confirming your registration along with a link to provide us with all the necessary information to register with WeRe Bank should you decide, there is no obligation to use WeRe Bank..
Post a Comment