America Is A Free Country - Includes Background Information On Barack Obama And Lots Of Legal & Admiralty Law Information

8th September 2008

The Enslaving Of Americans

Waheguru ji ki Fateh

The founders of this country were slave owners. They invaded and enslaved the local native people. They imported slaves to work tobacco and cotton plantations.

Lincoln may have freed slaves, but did not abolish the slavery of corporate America. Self serving politicians and their ilk whose campaigns are paid for by corporations are little more than slave mongers seeking to further enslave the American people giving tax breaks to corporations and saddling average citizens with huge deficits incurred by those who are profiting inn billions and trillions quarterly from war and oil.

The profiteers use misdirection and fear, religion and focus on the distant past to sidestep dialogue about present election issues of ecology, economy, environment, and commerce, making empty promises and misleading statements.

Their band of 'democrazy' seeks to further enslave the entire world with outsourcing and trade agreements with leaders whose peoples energies go to manufacturing exports rather than influx into their own economy.

Sukhmandir Kaur Khalsa
sikhism.guide@ about.com
Guide to Sikhism: http://sikhism.about.com
Blog: http://sikhism.about.com/b
Forums: http://sikhism.about.com/mpboards.htm

------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

SearchScanBETA On WEB RESULTS: America land Of The Fee And Home Of The Knave

1. Land Of The Free - Home Of The Depraved: http://www.rense.com/general70/deprav.htm
... and their bureaucratic stooges at all levels of government in America. ... It's "Land Of The Fee, Home Of The Knave!" And number two: ... www.rense.com/general70/deprav.htm

2. American Suicide: http://www.rense.com/general67/amsui.htm
It is now referred to as, "Land of the Fee and Home of the Knave. ... the Constitution of the United States of America, we should be free. ... www.rense.com/general67/amsui.htm

3. MaxiBucksInc.com: http://maxibucksinc.com
and its elected operatives will assure the continued existence of a fee ... America: Land of the Fee and Home of the Knave. Contibuting PACs. Outsource America ... maxibucksinc.com

4. Patrick Henry: America's Radical Dissenter: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_summer_fall/henry.htm
... land to arms, "his soul was bowed down and bleeding under the heaviest sorrows ... Henry accepted the offer and sent his troops home. ... www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_summer_fall/henry.htm

5. "America" by Noah Webster: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1789
But the distribution of land in America, not only supersedes the necessity of ... Home. Special Exhibits: Constitutional Convention | Ratification of the Constitution ... www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1789

6. A Citizen of America by Noah Webster: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1782
Thus the honest and punctual are doubly loaded—and the knave triumphs in his negligence. ... country, a general possession of land in fee simple, may be rendered ... www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1782 - 88k

7. Of Lythos and Lythosants: http://lythosants.wordpress.com
Google's America; Land of the Fee, Home of the Knave. May 27, 2008 by pscyclone ... and do whatever it is gay couples do; what happens in the privacy of a home ... lythosants.wordpress.com

----------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Kennan Devan

From America is a free country. Americans love freedom, critical thinking, peace, progress, prosperity, scientific spirit, pluralism, and pursuit of happiness. Recently Islam has been invading America and recruiting criminals, vagabonds, miscreants, anti Zionists, subversive agents and anti social elements. Islam is liberating them from American freedom and enslaving them with the rigid, totalitarian, closed Islamic dogma. Once an American is forcefully or deceptively converted to Islam he will lose his freedom. Since Islam is against freedom, democracy, pluralism, peace and coexistence, Islamic invasion of America and conversion of criminals will pose a grave danger to our life, liberty, peace and prosperity.

-----------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Blue Lori

Absolutely right! And bo's pick of biden who is an ADMITTED zionist is even more scary! biden is also a plagiarist and he wrote the bill to bail out the banks! bo also participated in that voting for it. And who can name a good communist country? Is that anything like we have in America...no, no, no!

# Digg - JOE BIDEN: I am a ZIONIST: http://digg.com/politics/JOE_BIDEN_I_am_a_ZIONIST

JOE BIDEN: I am a ZIONIST watch! youtube.com — BIDEN: "Israel is not the cause of Iraq ... Israel for accidently sinking a US ship during war (which Israel has admitted and ...

# Digg - Confirmed: Joe Biden is Obama's Running Mate: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Confirmed_Joe_Biden_is_Obama_s_Running...

CNN has just broke the news that Joe Biden is indeed Obamas Running mate. ... nice day. 30somethinDad, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3 Yay, you fools are supporting admitted CFR Zionist ...

Barack Obama's New Muslim Advisor Cements Campaign's Ties To Terror Friendly Organisations

August 2, 2008

Barack Obama's New Muslim Advisor Cements Campaign's Ties To Terror Friendly Organizations

By BEILA RABINOWITZ and WILLIAM MAYER

August 1, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - In a desperate attempt to win Muslim votes and to overcome a recent PR debacle - a June 16 Barack Obama rally in Detroit during which the campaign moved two women who were wearing hijab so they would not appear in images featuring the candidate - his campaign has announced the appointment of a "liaison" to the Arab and Muslim community, Mazen Asbahi.

Asbahi's Islamist credentials are reflected by the enthusiasm with which the news was greeted by American Islamists, including the Muslim Public Affairs Council [MPAC] which stated:

"Mr. Asbahi will further the Obama campaigns outreach efforts and participation of the Muslim American community…MPAC is confident that Mr. Asbahi will encourage Muslim Americans to be civically engaged." source, http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=673

Understanding MPAC's MO, "Civically engaged" should be interpreted as a euphemism for implementing shari'a; the organization's goals having been characterized by Dr. Daniel Pipes as:

"Impeding counterterrorism efforts and forwarding an Islamist vision of America..." source, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/07/the-difference-between-cair-and-...

In testimony delivered before the House Foreign Relations Committee just yesterday, noted terror authority Steven Emerson observed about MPAC:

"Marayati has repeatedly justified the actions of Hizbollah before the Department of State invited him as a speaker. In November 1999, on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Marayati responded to accusations that he supports Hizbollah, "If the Lebanese people are resisting Israeli intransigence on Lebanese soil, then that is the right of resistance and they have the right to target Israeli soldiers in this conflict. That is not terrorism. That is a legitimate resistance." source, Steven Emerson Testimony, U.S. House Committe On Foreign Affairs, pg. 4 : http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/eme073108.pdf

The constellation of organizations to which Mr. Asbahi is linked should give pause for concern.

For example, Asbahi, a Chicago lawyer, is on the speakers list of the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] [see, http://www.isna.net/Programs/pages/Speakers-Services.aspx#17].

ISNA is widely understood to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist Egyptian group that created Hamas. ISNA was named last summer as an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation's largest terror prosecution, U.S. vs Holy Land Foundation and is the largest Saudi funded da'wa enterprise in North America. [source, http://www.nysun.com/article/55778?access=284047]

Asbahi's ISNA biography reveals that he is involved in numerous Islamist organizations including the Nawawi Foundation [a da'wa organization run by a convert to Islam which presents all of history from an Islamist perspective] as well as the National Association of Muslim Lawyers [NAML] which has close ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR], which has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as well as having been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing Holy Land prosecution.

According to his ISNA bio, Asbahi also, "serves as a member of the board of directors of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding," [ISPU].

The ISPU's Islamist roots run deep.

Muktedar Khan, a prominent Islamist and fellow at ISPU, testified before Congress [see, http://www.ispu.org/policy_briefs/articledetailpb-8.html] absurdly claiming that Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, "is struggling for independence," and that Hezbollah is only, "motivated by geopolitics," and does not share, "political goals with Al Qaeda."

The National Association of Muslim Lawyers often serves as the legal mouthpiece for terror friendly groups such as CAIR and ISNA and recently petitioned the Attorney General to remove, both CAIR and ISNA from their designation as co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.

The appointment of Mazen Asbahi to be Obama's liason to Arab and Muslims is another indication of Obama's worrying associations. With Islamist Asbahi at the helm of the campaign's outreach effort to Muslims it is clear that an Obama presidency would give groups like MPAC and ISNA intimate access to key government decision makers and bring the "United States of Allah," one step closer to reality .

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=obamaid=8.1.08%2Ehtm

-----------------------------

# Subject: RADICAL MARXISTS, COMMUNIST PARTY USA & OBAMA

CPUSA, (Communist Party USA) and Obama Platforms Are Identical

Election 2008 Help Make History

Turn Our Country Around A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility. Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA The choice is clear. Stay with the Bush-McCain race to the bottom or raise up the whole country with a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right on November 4.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cpusa-and-obama-platforms-are-identic...

CPUSA - websites below
http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/

The 1960's Radical Marxists Behind Obama's Campaign: http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/2008/07/1960s-radical-marxists-...

http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama%20is%20a%20M...

Almost every Marxist from the 1960's has been reborn supporting the Obama campaign. Obama is now in the middle of lying to the public in pretending to move more centrist. Don't believe it.

Patriots Against Obama: http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com
From the The Wall Street Journal 6-17-08:
Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Marxist Obama is for Redistribution of Wealth: http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/2008/06/marxist-obama-is-for-re...

As Patriots we must stand together against the Marxist that is Barack Hussein Obama. He is unqualified to be President of the United States. He is Jimmy Carter part II. He is part and parcel of the dirty, elitist, Chicago political machine. Obama has never managed or run anything of significance. He is man of questionable background with dubious associations to criminals, racists, and terrorists. It would be a dire, dire four years if this man becomes President.

http://patriotsagainstobama.blogspot.com/2008/06/marxist-obama-is-for-re...

-----

Here is what you will have left if you vote for bo! Since the lie's are being spread that Palin called him "Sambo" which by the way are untrue!!!!

Sambo's Coffee Wooden Nickels

# Obama's global poverty programhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=73554

Barack Obama's hallmark, keystone plan during his short tenure in Congress. It is called the Global Poverty Act, and its initial cost was set at $845 billion.

* www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=73554

* · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obamas+global+poverty+plan&d=739139...

* I have been telling people this for months now from the article on the Democratic underground now here is more!!! The original article I found is below. Someone should get this information out ~~~

Fanny, Freddie, and Obama *** "...waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle."
Source: American Spectator
URL Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp? art_id=13841

Washington Prowler
Fanny, Freddie, and Obama
By The Prowler
Published 9/8/2008 12:08:38 AM

When President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson to serve as Treasury Secretary, Republicans raised a red flag that Paulson, who, along with his wife, has strong ties to the Democrat party, would not be an honest broker with Republicans.

That seems to have been borne out, with sources inside of Treasury reporting that Paulson briefed Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign advisers on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout plan before offering such a briefing to the McCain campaign.

In fact, the McCain campaign had sought a similar briefing several days ago as word spread that a bailout plan was to be unveiled and had been turned down by Paulson's senior staff.

The next question is: Why was the Obama campaign so keen on getting advanced word about the bailout?

"They have a huge problem with the mortgage and housing market story, and everyone is missing it," says a Republican political media consultant with ties to the Obama campaign due to the bipartisan nature of the firm he does work with.

"You look at Obama's economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton -- and I mean a ton -- of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle."

Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.

"How can Obama go out with a straight face and saw it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?" says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "It's his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama's campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign let's this one go, they deserve to lose."

It isn't just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.

Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.

"We ought to be able to -- rightly -- hang the Fannie and Freddie scandal around the neck of Obama, if they can get out in front," says a House Republican. "Middle-class folks' mortgages are probably safe, but the American taxpayer will also be paying for this scandal for years to come."

U.S. government takes over mortgage giants (PRICE UP TO $200 BILLION)
Source: Seattle Times
URL Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com
Published: Sep 7, 2008
Author: (unknown)
Post Date: 2008-09-07 23:38:58 by glc1173
14 Comments

The Bush administration's seizure of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is potentially a $200 billion bet that it will help reverse a prolonged housing and credit crisis.

The historic move announced Sunday won support from both presidential campaigns, but private analysts worried that it may not be enough to stabilize the slumping housing market given the glut of vacant homes for sale, rising foreclosures, rising unemployment and weak consumer confidence.

Officials announced that both giant institutions were being placed in a government conservatorship, a move that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said allowing the companies to fail would have extracted a far higher price on consumers by driving up the cost of home loans and all other types of borrowing because the failures would "create great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe."

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com predicted that 30-year mortgage rates, currently averaging 6.35 percent nationwide, could dip to close to 5.5 percent. That's because investors will be more willing to buy the debt issued by Fannie and Freddie - and at lower rates - since the federal government is now explicitly standing behind that debt.

"Effectively, the federal government has now become the nation's mortgage lender," he said. "This takes a major financial threat off the table."

Futures on all major stock indexes rose about 2 percent in electronic trading Sunday night, another sign of investor relief about the takeover plan

The companies, which together own or guarantee about $5 trillion in home loans, about half the nation's total, have lost $14 billion in the last year and are likely to pile up billions more in losses until the housing market begins to recover.

The Treasury Department said it was prepared to put up as much as $100 billion over time in each of the companies if needed to keep them from going broke, in exchange for senior preferred stock. Treasury will immediately be issued $1 billion of such stock from each company, which will pay 10 percent interest. Further purchases of preferred stock will be triggered if quarterly audits find that the companies' capital cushion is below prudent standards.

The government, which will receive warrants representing ownership stakes of 79.9 percent in each company, is hoping that its moves will reassure nervous investors that they can continue to buy the debt of the two companies.

In a statement, President Bush said, "Americans should be confident that the actions taken today will strengthen our ability to weather the housing correction and are critical to returning the economy to stronger sustained growth."

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama issued a statement agreeing that some form of intervention was necessary, and promised, "I will be reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact to determine whether it achieves the key benchmarks I believe are necessary to address this crisis."

Republican presidential nominee John McCain also voiced support while his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said that Fannie and Freddie "have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

The conservatorship will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie, a move taken at the same time that Congress greatly expanded the power of the Treasury Department to make loans to the two companies and purchase their stock.

The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced. Herb Allison, the former head of the TIAA-CREF retirement investment fund, was selected to head Fannie Mae, and David Moffett, a former vice chairman of US Bancorp, was picked to head Freddie Mac.

Paulson was careful not to blame Daniel Mudd, the outgoing CEO of Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac's departing CEO Richard Syron for the companies' current problems. While both men are being removed as the top executives, they have been asked to remain for an unspecified period to help with the transition.

Fannie and Freddie both purchase home loans from banks and then repackage those loans as mortgage-backed securities which they either hold on their own books or sell to investors around the globe. This process provides banks with more money to make more home loans, greatly expanding home ownership.

The impact of the government takeover on existing common and preferred shares, which have slumped in value in the last year, will depend on how investors react to Paulson's assertion that they must absorb the cost of further losses first. Under the plan, dividends on both common and preferred stock would be eliminated, saving about $2 billion a year.

After the Treasury Department's announcement, credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded Fannie and Freddie's preferred stock to junk-bond status, but reaffirmed the U.S. government's triple-A rating.

The Federal Reserve and other federal banking regulators said in a joint statement Sunday that "a limited number of smaller institutions" have significant holdings of common or preferred stock shares in Fannie and Freddie, and that regulators were "prepared to work with these institutions to develop capital-restoration plans."

The Fed released a letter from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to James Lockhart, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in which the Fed chief said he concurred in Lockhart's decision to take control of Fannie and Freddie saying the action "will help ensure the safe and sound operation of the enterprises."

Analysts were split on how much the takeover could eventually cost taxpayers although they all agreed the up-front costs will be substantial, possibly hitting $100 billion as the Treasury is called upon to bolster the capital cushions at both institutions.

However, if the plan does the trick of stabilizing the housing market and home prices stop falling and rebound, then the assets of both Fannie and Freddie should rise in value and the government should be able to sell off the companies and recoup its investments.

But it could take a long time to work through that process given all the headwinds facing housing at the moment from the plunge in home prices to soaring defaults on mortgages which are dumping more homes on an already glutted market. The weak economy has pushed unemployment to a five-year high of 6.1 percent, further reducing demand for homes.

"I think the government will end up having to put in far more money then they are planning right now (given all the problems facing housing) but the important thing is the agencies have been taken over by the government," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands. "That means there will be less panic in financial markets."

Under government control, the companies will be allowed to expand their support for the mortgage market over the next year by boosting their holdings of mortgage securities they hold on their books from a combined $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion. Starting in 2010, though, they are required to drop their holdings by 10 percent annually until they reach a combined $500 billion.

In addition, officials said the Treasury Department plans to purchase $5 billion in mortgage-backed securities issued by the two companies later this month, the first of a series of purchases planned by the government in an effort to bolster for these securities, which was badly shaken a year ago when the credit crisis first erupted with soaring defaults on subprime mortgages.

Paulson said that it would be up to Congress and the next president to figure out the two companies' ultimate structure and the conflicting goals they operated under - maximizing returns for shareholders while also being required to facilitate home buying for low- and moderate-income Americans.

"There is a consensus today ... that they cannot continue in their current form," he said.

Members of Congress will be watching in the coming months to see how the takeover works, but more housing legislation appears unlikely until next year given the few weeks remaining both Congress quits to hit the campaign trail.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. said the intervention was sparked by worries within the Bush administration that foreign governments would stop holding Fannie and Freddie's debt. "This was the prudent course to take," he said.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., announced his committee would hold hearings on the takeover to address a number of unanswered questions so that the American people will know "if this unprecedented proposal will help keep mortgages affordable, stabilize the markets and protect taxpayer interests."

Lockhart said that all lobbying activities of both companies would stop immediately. Both companies over the years made extensive efforts to lobby members of Congress in an effort to keep the benefits they enjoyed as government-sponsored enterprises.

Sunday's actions followed a series of meetings Paulson had with Bush and other top administration economic officials with Bush relying heavily on the judgment of Paulson, who was the head of investment giant Goldman Sachs before he joined the Cabinet in 2006.

"It is really an assent to Hank's direction, guidance and judgment," said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss behind-the-scenes deliberations.

* Jackson Williams: Joe Biden: No True Friend of Working Men and Women: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/joe-biden-true-friend-of_...

... knows that the bankruptcy bill is a disaster for average folks. Joe Biden ... book and he pays on a mortgage for ... Those bankruptcy bills are a root cause of the housing crisis.

o www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/joe-biden-true-friend-of_b_12077...

o · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=biden+bill+started+the+mortgage+cri...

o MBNA paid Biden son at critical time for bill: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/25/politics/p15...

... the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill early in 2005, Biden ... remain on Palin vetting; 49ers' daunting start doesn ... Mortgage crisis aside, suburban sprawl isn't going away.
+ www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/25/politics/p151551D46...
+ · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=biden+bill+started+the+mortgage+cri...

+ Obama Got Discount on Home Loan - washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST20080701...

Obama Got Discount on Home Loan Campaign Defends Lower Rate as Lender Competition for Business ... of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan ...
# www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST2008070103301.h...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=738670...

+ Obama Got Discount on Home Loan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR200807...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=738670...

# Show more results from www.washingtonpost.com: http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=site:www.washingtonpost.com+obama+...

+ Newsmax.com - Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan: http://news.newsmax.com/?K6CDX1fFxaCTBJFqH12u.BRZn3letJR1K&http://www.ne...

Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan ... home loans. Obama, D-Ill ... Countrywide is the same bank involved in the loan scandal that caused Obama's vice ...

w# news.newsmax.com/?K6CDX1fFxaCTBJFqH12u.BRZn3letJR1K&http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/oba...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=739083...

+ newsobserver.com | Obama got discount on home loan after becoming ...: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1127541.html

Obama got discount on home loan after becoming senator ... the banking committee, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., by another lender, Countrywide ...

# www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1127541.html

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=739083...

+
Obama's Countrywide-like Sweetheart Mortgage Deal | Redstate: http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/obamas_countrywide_li...

... as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan ... That said, those loans carry a much higher rate than a loan for 650k. Obama got an enormously ...

# archive.redstate.com/stories/elections2008/obamas_countrywide_like_sweetheart_mortgage_de...

# · Cached page: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=obama+got+countrywide+loan&d=738934...

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 1 of 4

Obama's Money Cartel
February, 23 2008
By Pam Martens
Source: CounterPunch

Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it’s marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn’t the press curious about this?

Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you’ll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by
predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - and this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared this month on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don’t. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn’t compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, ! and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the “yes, we can” candidate in bed with this cartel? How can we, the people, make change if Obama’s money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street.

The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we’re still in the primary season.

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 2 of 4

But hasn’t Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn’t taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn’t the press given him a free pass on this statement?

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 22, 2008:

“Washington lobbyists haven’t funded my campaign, they won’t run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president”.

Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

“Candidates typically spend a week like this – right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline – on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees”.

The Center for Responsive Politics’ website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he’s not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy.

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005.

Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:

“Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights..”.

Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 3 of 4

House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway. The AGs wrote: “State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions...”

The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows:

“Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law”.

This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. “The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill”, says Public Citizen.

One of the hardest-working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown’s class-action lobbyists included “Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La).”

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown’s partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped to gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation’s history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion, for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

“According to federal data, people of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans: highcost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites”.

http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 28/02/2008 - 18:13
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/16601 - Page 4 of 4

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. “This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism.”

Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans?

How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called “Rocopoly Money” (like a sick board game), after “blitz” nights of soliciting loans by phone?

How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the classaction vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation’s poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741 @ aol.com

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16601

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

AMERICA IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY
By Doug Newman - dougnewman @ juno.com
June 30, 2004

Independence Day is upon us. This July 4 we will celebrate the 228th anniversary of our independence from Britain and our birth as a free nation. We will watch fireworks, go to barbecues, go camping (at tax-funded state and national parks), go to baseball games (in tax-funded stadiums) and hear endless talk about how gosh darn wonderful it is that we live in a free country.

Or do we live in a free country?

Consider the following.

In a free country, taxation would be well-nigh non-existent. You could keep what you earned and you could spend, save, invest and donate as you saw fit. You would have far more money with which to solve your own problems.

In a free country, there would not be 20,000-plus laws on the books infringing – and even denying – the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Crime would plummet as criminals would never know who was armed.

In a free country, you could educate your children as you saw fit, without asking anyone’s permission. You could home school you kids if you wanted. Catholics could send their kids to the Our Lady of Mercy School; Baptists could send their kids to the Obadiah Baptist School; Mormons could send their kids to the Joseph Smith school; Muslims could send their kids to the Allah Akbar School; believers in Mungabunga could send their kids to Mungabunga school. If you are not spiritual, you could send your kids to the Whitney Houston School -- “Where the children are the future” – or to the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young School – “Where we teach your children well”. Prayer, declining academic standards, evolution, creation, condoms, gay curricula, busing, standardized testing, bullying, discipline, dress codes and all the other debates surrounding education today would cease to be social issues.

In a free country, businesses would not be crushed in a regulatory vise grip. Millions of jobs would stay here in America rather than going to Honduras and Bangladesh.

In a free country, the military would be used strictly for national defense. We would not have troops in 135 countries. We would heed the Founders’ advice and steer clear of foreign alliances, which have been nothing but trouble anyway. We would withdraw from the United Nations and all its subsidiary organizations. Terrorism would cease to be a threat: when we stop throwing our weight around “over there”, hatred and resentment toward the United States will be far, far less.

In a free country, we would not have the world’s highest incarceration rate.

In a free country, jurors could judge not only the facts pertaining to a given case, but also the law relevant to that case. If Juror Smith thought Defendant Jones was being tried under a stupid law, Juror Smith could vote to acquit on that basis and that basis alone. The prison population would plummet.

In a free country, the value of money would be tied to gold or silver. The Federal Reserve Bank would be shut down. We would not see our savings and our futures eroded by inflation. And we would not owe bazillions of dollars to folks who already have bazillions of dollars.

In a free country, it would take neither a village nor a police state to raise a child. Government would not act in loco parentis for an absentee Mommy and Daddy. Parents would be responsible for raising their own children. Most of the problems we have with kids today – sex, drugs, violence – would be greatly minimized.

In a free country there would be no war on drugs. Drug profits and street crime would plummet. It would not be the government’s job to keep people off of drugs. It would be the job of parents, churches, Mungabunga temples, etc. Back when it was this way, there was almost no “drug problem” at all. (If the Mungabunga people smoke that hooch in their rituals, they would be free to do so without fear of DEA harassment.)

In a free country, we would not constantly be relinquishing our freedom in exchange for security. People would know that the greatest threat to their security comes from their own government.

In a free country, if a state decided it had had enough of rule by Washington, D.C., it could secede from the union without fear of reprisal.

In a free country, there would be no law forbidding what you could ingest into your body. If a certain medication worked, your doctor could recommend it and you could take it without fear of punishment.

In a free country, there would be no welfare state, no education state and no medical state. There would not be a permanent underclass, the quality of education would be vastly improved, and medicine would be far less expensive. Moreover, immigrants would know that coming to America would mean either sink or swim. Deadbeats would not come here looking for a handout. And all immigrants would, out of necessity, learn English.

In a free country, there would be no minimum wage. Millions of jobs would be created in the inner cities overnight. Congressmen, senators, and other government workers would be paid what they are worth.

In a free country, there would be no Selective Service System. Threats of a draft would meet with furious resistance, not lame justifications.

In a free country, there would be no Patriot Act. There would be no "sneak and peek" warrants. The authorities would have to obtain a warrant to review your bank accounts and e-mails. Habeas Corpus would be secure.

In a free country, there would be no surrender of sovereignty to entities like the UN, where we can be outvoted 2-1 by such paragons of personal freedom as Sudan and North Korea. Our troops would not be involved in UN sponsored wars. Moreover, things like NATO and the International Criminal Court would no longer have any relevance.

In a free country, there would be no “promise” of Social Security at age 62 or 65 or 67 or … how far back will they have moved it when you reach your golden years? You could take that same money and put it in the most profitable private sector investments you could find. Furthermore, you would not be constantly tracked by means of your Social Security Number.

In a free country, you would only be punished if you inflicted physical harm on somebody else. Rick Stanley: http://www.stanley2002.org would never have been arrested and Martha Stewart would be a free woman. Randy Weaver’s wife and son would still be alive. The Branch Davidians would be living in peace on the outskirts of Waco. Non-violent drug offenders would not waste away in prison, while convicted rapists and murderers went free.

In a free country, churches would truly be exempt from taxation, which would be minimal to begin with. The IRS would not have conducted raids on the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, Dr. Kent Hovind’s creation science theme park and other ministries that have not kissed up to the government in order to be tax exempt. Indeed, there would be no IRS.

In a free country, we would not have adopted nine of the ten “planks” of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. How have we done this? (1): http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/notafree.html#Gene

In a free country, your property rights would not be under attack. (Plank 1) There would be no zoning laws. You could not lose your home or business for failure to pay taxes. There would be no EPA harassment of landowners over “wetlands” and other issues. The FEDGOV would not be the nation's largest landowner.

In a free country, there would be no progressive income tax. (Plank 2) Again, there would be no IRS. Period.

In a free country, there would be no inheritance tax. (Plank 3)

In a free country, there would be no confiscation of property of those who resisted the powers that be. (Plank 4) Consider what they did to my friend Rick Stanley. (2): http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/notafree.html#Rick

In a free country, there would not be a central bank. (Plank 5) There would be no Federal Reserve and there would not a multi-zillion dollar national debt.

In a free country, there would be no government control of communications and transportation. (Plank 6) There would be no FCC, DOT, ICC, etc. Airports would not be mini-police states.

In a free country, there would be no government intrusion in manufacturing and agriculture. (Plank 7) There would be no Department of Labor or Department of Agriculture. Your business could not be shut down for OSHA violations. There would be no federal farm subsidies or price supports.

In a free country, there would be no federal control of labor. (Plank 8) There would be no National Labor Relations Board, no minimum wage laws, no affirmative action or racial quotas.

The merger of agriculture and industry (Plank 9) is tough to explain in one short paragraph. The centralizers can only be happy that farming is increasingly controlled by conglomerates that are far more likely to kiss up to the FEDGOV than a family that has worked the same piece of land for three generations.

In a free country, the government would not be in control of education. (Plank 10) I am fond of pointing out to people that, while neither the Bible nor any of America’s Founding documents say anything about state education, you will find state education as a policy prescription of the Communist Manifesto.

So there you have it.

America is not a free country.

I know, I know, I know: I can vote this November and I can write this essay without fear of punishment. And, no, there are no death camps yet.

However, if this country continues on its present course, I will one day be imprisoned for dissing the FEDGOV and there will be death camps.

The incineration of 80 innocent people by the FEDGOV at Waco in 1993 was a trial balloon floated before a brainwashed nation. Grotesquely excessive forced was used for no good reason, and millions of Americans derisively giggled at “that cult.” When they came for the Davidians, we did not say anything because we were not Davidians.

Today, millions of Americans still buy the lie that America is a free country. Hitler knew the power of the lie: if you lie to people often enough, they will believe anything. And while we are not at the Hitler phase yet, we will arrive there if we keep (a) believing everything our government – or at least our preferred faction of the government – says and (b) believing we are a free nation. You cannot have it both ways.

Sadly, some people will not clue in until the death camp phase. I pray fervently that enough Americans wake up before then.

Scripture tells us to preach the truth without ceasing, for there will come a time when people will not want to hear the truth. Rather, they will surround themselves with ear-ticklers who will tell them whatever they want to hear, regardless of its veracity. (II Timothy 4:2-4)

People ask me from time to time if I get frustrated fighting the freedom fight in a society where so many will gladly relinquish freedom for a false sense of security. To be honest, the answer is yes. However, I must continue to fight this fight and leave the results to God.

Happy Fourth of July.

------

One reader's response: In a truly Free Country anybody could do what ever they damned well wanted to do with out any form of limitations whatsoever!

------

(1) For my info on the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, I must give credit to my friend Gene Chapman, who asks if American troops are in fact fighting for communism: www.exodus10-3.org/us-troops-fighting-for-communism.shtml

(2) http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_29524...

Freely Speaking: Essays by Doug Newman: http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/iwrote.html

http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth
dougnewman @ juno.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From John Stokes

Post your comments to The Canadian blog. www.members.agoracosmopolitan.com.

John Stokes
The Canadian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Big Al

American have been enslaved since before the founding of this country and totally subjects to criminals running the show since 1787. As the Last of the Mohecians said, "not untill the white man is free will we be free"

Big Al

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9th September 2008

From Sankar Narayanan

Indian aborigines were crushed and subordinated by the invading Aryans. The minority rogues calling themselves upper castes introduced the obnoxious racism viz Varnashrama system of apartheid since Rig Veda days. The minority hegemony over the majority Sudras and 5th varnas still persists. Buddha attempted. But failed. Gandhi tried and paid a heavy price. These upper caste rascals proclaim vasudeiva kutumbakkam; but practice treacherous colour discrimination. Any attempt to break this 5000 years old caste-based RESERVATION enjoyed by this exploiting sect will be met with fiercest resistance in the name of MERIT.

European thugs and outlaws landed in Americans like our Aryan invaders and enslaved the aborigines of America. These aggressors also talk the democracy and human rights. But they virtually drink human blood.

What a similarity between these thugs! Hypocrisy is the name of the game. No correlation between thoughts, words and deeds.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kesava Pillai

Sankar,
Update your knowledge of history. Research has concluded incontrovertiblwas no Aryan invasion from the West and this was a fabrication by British to create the rift between fair and dark complexioned Indians categorizing them as Aryans and Dravidians.

Aryan is not a race. The term Arya in Sanskrit means "Respected", Enlightened, teacher..etc. and has no connotation to any particular race. There are so many Arya-s in Tamilnadu too. If you want I'll give authentic articles on the same.

Varnasrama categorises people according to their skills and professions followed. A Brahmin's son cannot be a Brahmin unless he masters the Veda-s or the texts assigned. Brahmo Gnanethy Brahmana: One who has understood and learnt about this Universe is a Brahmana. Similarly Kshatriya-s as rulers and warriors, Vaisya-s as traders/ businessmen and the rest unskilled as Sudra-s doing miscellaneoufor the three categories above. If a Sudra learns Veda-s and excels himself he could be a Brahmana according to the original classification.

In several millenea, apparently this has metamorphosed to geneology, since a father usually trains the offsprings in their skills and a Brahmin's son usually picks up the education from his parents and so on.

When the Govt. is controlled by over 67% of SC/ST/OBC as Ministers or bureaucrats or Govt. staff and there are reservations from 50% to 75%(Tamilnadu) in all admissions to educational institutions, Govt. jobs and even accelerated promotions, how can you blame the 3% Brahmin presence in these areas for the "treacherous colour discrimination" and you call them rascals?

Wherever intelligent outputs are essential you have to recruit a Brahmin or upper caste Hindu or converts from these Castes. Who is the Chairman of Pepsi the highest paid Brahmin woman from Tamilnadu? How many SC/ST/OBC-s are there in NASA or Silicon Valley or even in India- in ISRO or PRL or Professors in elite institutions?

Sc/St/OBC-s have to study hard and come up. When there is free lunch and reserved jobs even for those failed, nobody would study and status quo would continue with such bad tongue leashed out by people like you for the unreachable out of jealousy, in spite of all freeships given by Govt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kannan Devan

Deliberate ignorance of Jihadi terrorists and their cohorts are leading them to believe in false stories, distorted historical facts and blunders. For Muslims and their paid Jihadi agents Ignorance is bliss. There was no Aryan invasion of India. This false theory is deliberately fabricated to deny native Indians due credits for their undisputed contributions in science, literature, technology, mathematics, philosophy, medicine and agriculture. There was no Aryan invasion or subjugation of any other race in India. The British colonial masters have fabricated several theories to divide, conquer and subjugate Indians. Paid coolies are unable to escape from their mindset and elevate to higher level because of their voluntary surrender of their mind to Jihadis and their pay masters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Expose

DEMOCRACY IS A LIE AND IS SLAVERY BY ANY OTHER NAME.

Exposé
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

There are three kinds of people in the world:
* Those who do what they're told without question,
* Those who control them, and-
* Those who refuse to play that game - ENVIED AND HATED BY THE OTHER TWO.
Copula eame se non posit acceptara jocularem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kannan Devan

There are three kinds of people in the world:
* Those who do what they're told without question, (MUSLIMS)
* Those who control them, and- (MULLAHS)
* Those who refuse to play that game - ENVIED AND HATED BY THE OTHER TWO. (Non MUSLIMS)
Copula eame se non posit acceptara jocularem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Sankar Narayanan

Dear Kesava Pillai,

Why this Pillai support?

Are you not ashamed?

Yes I updated my knowledge through a neo-Varanashrama Pundit by name Kesava.

Brahmin's son picks up education from his parents.

A Dalit's son picks up night soil carriage from his parents?

5000 yrs of caste-based Reservation for you people is ok. But 100 yrs old de-reservation is destroying all the MERIT in this land! This chori MERIT acquired by centuries of cheat and loot should have been confiscated on Aug 15, 1947.

Had it been done, 70% of Central Govt employees even today would not have been from upper castes. Out of 400 professors in IIT-Madras, 340 cannot be from upper castes.

Vedas, puranas, smiritis etc preach rank racism. Brahminism, Sanskrit, Hindu Gods and casteism are inseperable. Like Kesava and Pillai.

You may say the casteist Rig Veda was written by British to defame the noble Brahmins. You may even suggest it was the British who introduced untouchability in India. Forced Dalits to carry human refuse. Refused temple entry. Taught Talibanic Brahmins that those who study need not work; and those who work must not study.

Govt jobs can accomodate mere two crore plus people. What is the number of employable youths in this nation? Whom are you fooling? We need de-reservation for 5000 yrs!!

Why are you boiling that "When the Govt. is controlled by over 67% of SC/ST/OBC as Ministers or bureaucrats or Govt. staff and there are reservations from 50% to 75%(Tamilnadu) in all admissions to educational institutions, Govt. jobs and even accelerated promotions, how can you blame the 3% Brahmin presence in these areas for the "treacherous colour discrimination" and you call them rascals"?

Democracy does not mean continued minority loot. Lower castes in Hinduism, Budhists, Muslims and Christians constitute oppressed majority. But this 3% scheming rougues still want to rule the nation by proxy. That is why the rascal namakarnam.

Kesav, there is a limit for your jokes: "Varnasrama categorises people according to their skills and professions followed". Have you ever seen a Namboodiri or a Pillai carrying night soil and a Brahmin lady planting seedlings? Ever seen an Iyengar porter?

"Wherever intelligent outputs are essential you have to recruit a Brahmin or upper caste Hindu or converts from these Castes. Who is the Chairman of Pepsi the highest paid Brahmin woman from Tamilnadu? How many SC/ST/OBC-s are there in NASA or Silicon Valley or even in India- in ISRO or PRL or Professors in elite institutions?"

That is because of your filthy merit obtained by cheating Sudras for 5000 yrs. The so called 'Merit' sanctioned by Rig Veda and Varnashrama system of Reservation brought only social ignominy and economic misery to the majority since mythological days. Merit theory can no longer fool the Sudras. Because they are not the beneficiaries of this Holy Merit. We welcome all these suckers to migrate to their original land, putting a permanent end to looting.

"Sc/St/OBC-s have to study hard and come up. When there is free lunch and reserved jobs even for those failed, nobody would study and status quo would continue with such bad tongue leashed out by people like you for the unreachable out of jealousy, in spite of all freeships given by Govt".

Don't worry, we will study after packing you all Merit cheats out of our land. By the by, why your Talibanic Iyers asked us not to study since ages? Similarly you stop your studies at least for 2500 yrs. Tit for tat. Free ships: What an arrogance?

If a Sudra listens Veda, molten tin to be poured into his ears.

If he has the audacity to read Veda, his body must be split.

Kesav, are these the writings from British?

We are Sudras. We don't require your cheating Merit. Pl quit our land. We know how to manage our affairs. Outsiders have no business to meddle with our affairs. You get lost to Sillicon valley or to Mayanam. Jan chodo.

Request drop this abnoxious casteist leg Pillai from your name. If you are a chakkiliyan, can you write Kesava Chakkiliyan? Pl realise and repent. Don't grumble and boil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

United States Of America And United States Are The Same

"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it"
© - S. Hickman

Links: http://freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=8434 or try https://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=2&t=2&keyword=Lieber%20Cod... or try freedomunderground.org and search for this document

The Informer

WAR POWERS TODAY IN AMERICA
by the principles applied in 1862

FALLACY & MYTH of PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN and that the Constitution was created by the common man.

By The Informer

In reading the Book WAR POWERS, by Whiting, who was the Solicitor General of the War Department of The United States, published in 1864, it does not come as a shock to me that we are nothing but slaves of Congress, AKA United States. Whiting was Lincoln point man and developed the basis for Lincolns justification of the War Policies. Whiting teamed up with Francis Lieber who wrote the "Lieber Code" that we are now under. James Montgomery, a present day researcher, also has written extensively on the Reconstruction Acts and the Lieber Code and how they apply to Americans to this very day. After Whiting left office, his position that he held, was never replaced.

A little prelude to the book by John Yoo, War Powers Under the Constitution of the United States, Author William Whiting.

An introduction by John Yoo, Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkley: JD., 1992, Yale Law School; AB., 1989, Harvard University who teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law.

Upon opening this book, the tenth edition of William Whiting's War Powers under the Constitution of The United States the reader may be surprised . . .. If anything, Whiting's work helps remove the blinders that a half century of controversy over undeclared wars- from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to the Persian Gulf- has placed over the eyes of the legal profession. Born on March 3, 1813 in Concorde, Mass., he attended Harvard and got his law degree in 1838. As a Boston attorney, Whiting became known as so masterful a trial lawyer that, in his day, the Common Pleas Court was sometimes called "Whitings Court". The Boston lawyer began writing in support of the Lincoln administration’s arrests of suspected sympathizers of the rebellion. As the war proceeded, Whiting joined the War Department as Solicitor at the request of President Lincoln himself. No doubt it had to do with Whitings publication, in 1862 in Boston. Whatever the reason for his appointment, Whiting became the point man for the Lincoln administration on the difficult and delicate constitutional issues that arose from the war.

Whiting joined a truly exceptional group of lawyers who would create many of the theories of the independent presidency and the national security state that would reappear in the middle of the twentieth century. In addition to patent officer Peter Wilson, Whiting was joined by former cabinet member and first judge advocate general Joseph Holt, international law scholar, and Francis Leiber, and Eathan Allen Hitchcock and Henry W. Halleck, both lawyers who became generals, the latter becoming General in Chief in 1862.

In Whiting's documents he developed the legal theories that would justify Lincolns measures to conduct the war successfully on both the war front and home front; he also took a prominent role in publicly disseminating and explaining these views.

One of the best students of Lincoln and of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize--winning historian- Mark E. Neely, even suggests that it was Whiting's first pamphlet, War Powers and the President, that convinced Lincoln that as commander in chief he could abolish slavery in the rebellious states. Until reading Whiting's works, Neely suggests, Lincoln had been reluctant to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is perhaps a tribute to Whiting's success that no successor was ever appointed to his position upon his resignation in 1865. His ardent support for the Republican Party continued after leaving government service. In 1868 he served as presidential elector for Ulysses S. Grant, and in 1872 he was overwhelmingly elected to Congress by the third district of Massachusetts. Death at age sixty, however, prevented Whiting from joining the legislative body that he had once worked with as a member of the executive branch.

End of prelude.

Contrary to what many people believe, the term United States is NOT separate and distinct from the term United States of America, because the two are synonymous. As I stated way back in 1990 and continue to state, America is a country, and the United States is NOT a country. The United States belongs to America. Since the phrase United States OF America contains the word "OF" between the two words United States and America, proper use of the word OF means the United States belongs to America. Another rule of grammar is that the phrase United States is a particular place and not a group of states united. To become a group of states the word United would have to appear as united States. The small "u" would change the word United from a noun to an adjective. So one, to be grammatically correct, would have to write united States of America to correctly mean all 50 States. But even that is not a country. Simply writing United States of America means only Congress, AKA United States. A very simple proof is when the TV airs the State of the Union message. The President is announced as always, "I now present the President of the United States." It is never announced, I now present the President of the united States of America. To be the President of the united States of America would mean that the Governors of each of the states would not have the final say on any laws passed in that state but would have to depend on submitting anything the Governor had to sign to the President for final approval.

Since I have shown previously in my other books, through copious government documents, both of the United States and England and History, that the common people never ratified the constitutions of any of the states, much less the United States; people still believe that they created the constitutions and are, therefore, the so-called Sovereigns. This sovereign status is claimed to be that the people can tell government what and when to do anything through their perceived notion that they have representatives and these so-called representatives are their servants. This is a myth that has been told people down through the centuries. This big lie is passed from generation to generation so much so that people of all walks of life now take it as gospel truth. This myth is what has caused much dissention among the vast majority of people and even to cause infighting amongst people called "patriots", "militia" and others of like mind.

This War Powers book is just another support for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I will lead into this myth by quoting this great authority on War Powers and what he had to say back in 1864. This will be very short and as I read through the book I will add to his work to further show the Fallacy and Myth. It will be unbelievable to many, who still believe the Big Lie, that they are sovereign and somehow have control of this supposed government they alleged they created and can dispense with it when it becomes oppressive as it has today. I hope you are ready because what follows are not my words but those of the author Whiting and concurrence of all government branches. You also have to remember that we have been in a state of war with these people called Congress and the other two branches of so called government.

The United States is a belligerent government under international law of nations and the people therein. Yes you, dear reader, are the enemy subject and have never, ever, been a sovereign, and neither have your relatives dating back to 1787, UNLESS your relatives were one of the aristocracy having land and money and possibly a grant from the Crown.

Before I get into the book, and to give you what we call modern day research---Dr. Eugene Schroder did excellent research on this at the time I was also researching this material. I decided that since Mr. Schroder was doing this it would be redundant to do the same research, so I proceeded back to Lincoln to research the war powers back then. I had asked about 10 good researchers if they knew of the War Powers Acts, specifically 12 Stat 319 and none had researched it in order to give me any answers. But, I have to start with 48 Stat 1 which Roosevelt shoved through in Executive Order 2039, without Congress, on the 4th and 5th of March 1933. Then on March 9, 1933, Roosevelt convened Congress and basically told them what he did and that they had to sign off on it as he declared a national emergency. This National Emergency made the United States citizens enemies by adding them to the 1917 Trading with the Enemies Act by changing 5(b) of that Act to include Americans, which it never did before, which is you today.

The original draft was by the Federal Reserve System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President Hoover's Papers that can be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933, President Hoover said it was unconstitutional and refused to implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted. Immediately after taking office on March 4, 1933, the first thing Roosevelt did after implementing what Hoover refused, was to close the banks so they could be issued licenses by the President to deal with the enemy, who was defined now to be all people in the country. Immediately after that, each State set up its own Emergency War Powers regime to coincide with the United States.

After thorough research in North Carolina by a team of 5 people, we came up with documentation between the United States, and not only North Carolina, but other States. It was to slowly induce people into obtaining licenses as now the people, being declared public enemies, had to have licenses. The documentation showed how all people that were not required to have a license to drive were now required to have a license merely to travel as a right because they were the enemies. My mother and father, both deceased, told me that they never had to get a license until 1936. This documentation also showed how speed laws were set; how federal labor laws and unemployment compensation was legislated into the States; and the most important of all the social security; touted as insurance, it was in actuality a means of licensing the "enemy" to track their commerce under the Trading Acts with the newly revised 1917 Trading with the enemy act.

This enemy surveillance is very evident today by the use of what should be termed the Social Slave number but is called Social Security. It was instituted by the President, NOT Congress as most people believe. Oh sure, Congress passed legislation so it appears they instituted it, but under the war powers only the President institutes anything of importance and Congress under the constitutional war powers takes a second seat. They, in effect, become the puppets of the Executive branch. While under the war powers, all branches that should come under the Legislative branch and even the judiciary are controlled by the executive department through the Commander-in-Chief.

Since 1933, and before then, we have always been under Executive Emergency Orders despite in 1974 all was repealed EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. You can find it alive and well in Title 12 USC 95 (a)&(b). You can also find the other emergency war powers acts still existing from 1862 which have NEVER been repealed. They have their genesis from 12 Stat 319, and are 50 USC 212, 213, and 215 and 28 USC 2461 to 2465 as statutes passed as a direct and immediate result of declared emergencies. You will see how this is done as you read through this memorandum of mine.

This is totally under military powers of the Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule allows the civil government to operate as it has, only it all comes under administrative directives of the Commander In Chief. This explains the reason all courts fly the Executives Commander In Chief gold fringe flag and Federal courts have stationary using the United States Executive Seal. Now that you know that, you have been under executive Rule before and since 1933. I will now go back to the first President to institute the Emergency War Powers Act to make the people the enemy of the State. Roosevelt just made you the enemy of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private banking system Board can do what they want with impunity. They even wrote in the law that the signature card you sign when opening a bank account, unbeknownst to you, states in the 35 to 38 page contract they are to give to you, but don't, that you assume the debt of the United States. This is unconscionable under the commercial law that you were never informed. This is your promise, assumpsit in legal terms, which obligates and binds you to pay the debt of the United States by becoming the surety. Remember all Banks controlled by the Federal Reserve System are agents of the United States Treasury.

How many people would enter a contract like that, knowing they are responsible for the national debt? Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and was made the fiscal agent of the Treasury to collect and disburse money, or chose in action called federal reserve notes, is the reason the 1040 IRS Form is a return; a return of a use portion of the debt that is circulated around by the enemy, AKA the people of America. This is a very insidious scheme that people have no idea exists. In fact I have found and written on the fact that in Title 31 it states that banks can collect taxes on the 1040 form that is presented to them. I have posted this research on www.atgpress.com/.

The first President to use the Emergency powers was Washington. He used it to institute the first private bank of the United States, which, was against all principles of the constitution, EXCEPT, when instituted under constitutional war power it became constitutional. Then in order to control the banks in each of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the Constitution in time of peace, he made districts out of each of the states. So now you had states and district states and that is how the district courts of each state were formed so the United States could now have control where it dared not tread before. Once emergency had been declared then all done under this act is constitutional. Contrary to what people believe this act DID NOT set the Constitution aside. It only operated in a different way under emergency powers.

Now with all this in mind that the Commander in Chief can operate within the Constitution when military rule under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked; we move to Lincolns time and his Solicitor General of the War Department who wrote the book to show how common people have always been considered as nothing but mere chattel property of a group of aristocracy that was called Congress. From the beginning, this is the foundation that has caused people to slowly lose what rights they THOUGHT they had, but the plan was to get where we are today without a major rebellion by the people.

This almost took place in 1861 with the Southern States wanting to secede from the Union, and caused Lincoln to invoke the Emergency Powers Act in Order that he could control the Government without Congress. He did this under the guiding of the works of Whiting. Once he invoked it Congress could do nothing to stop it and the Courts, under this Act cannot stop it at all as you will see why in End Note 17.

My comments, are placed in [brackets] so you know they are not from the Book. All other comments and information are end noted so as to keep the flow of the book in order. Every jot and tittle is duplicated as in the Book. So with that in mind let us move to the Book.
WAR POWERS

Chapter I--THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE, EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF WAR.

There is no restriction as to the kind or character of private property which may be lawfully thus appropriated, whether it be real estate, personal estate, right in action or in possession, obligations for money, or for labor and service. Thus the obligations of minor children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and of persons owing labor and service to their masters, may lawfully be appropriated to public use, or discharged and destroyed for public benefit, by Congress, with the proviso that just compensation shall be allowed to the parent or master.
See END Note #1

The right to use the services of the minor, the apprentice, and the slave, for public benefit, belongs to the United States. The claims of all American citizens upon their services, whether by local law, orby common law, or by indentures, can be annulled by the same power, for the same reasons, and under the same restrictions that govern the appropriations of any other private property to public use.See END Note #2

THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY DUTY.

Slaves, as well as apprentices and minors, are equally subjects of the United States, whether they are or are not citizens thereof. The government of the United States has the right to call upon its subjects to do military duty.

See END Note #3

"The general government of the United States has, in time of peace, a legal right, under the Constitution, to appropriate to public use the private property of any subject, or of any number of subjects, owing it allegiance.

Each of the States claims and exercises a similar right over the property of its citizens.

See END Note #4

"The only question is, whether this power is not exclusive, see Chirac v Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; U.S. v Villato, 2 Dall. 372; Thirlow v Mass., 5 How. 585; Smith v Turner, 7 ib, 556; Golden v Prince,3 W.C.C. Reports, 314

Congress may thus give the privileges of citizenship to any persons whatsoever, black or white. Colored men, having been citizens in some of the States ever since they were founded, having acted as citizens prior to 1788 in various civil and military capacities, are therefore citizens of the United States, see case of Dred Scott; which no part denies that if colored men were citizens of either of the states which adopted the Constitution, they were citizens of the United States. ... If white subjects or citizens, owe labor or service, even by formal indentures, such obligations afford no valid excuse against the requisition of government to have them drafted into the militia to serve the country."

See END Note #5

INDEMNITY IS REQUIRED

"But, when individuals are called upon to give up what is their own for the advantage of the community, justice requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; . . . (Amendments, Art. V, last clause,) "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The language of this amendment admits the right of the United States to take private property for public use. This amendment, being now a part of the Constitution, leaves that right no longer open to question, if it ever was in questioned.

"PUBLIC USE"

What is "public use" for which private property may be taken?
Every appropriation for the benefit of the United States, either for a national public improvement, or to carry into effect and valid law of Congress for the maintenance, protection, or security of national interests, is "public use."

See END Note #6

REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS

The powers of the Legislative department in relation to war are contained chiefly in the following sections in the constitution:--

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.11. Congress may institute war by declaring it against an enemy. The President alone cannot do so. Also Congress may make laws concerning captures on land, as well as on water.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl 12. Congress may raise and support armies: and provide and maintain a navy.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.14. Congress may make laws for the government of land and naval forces.

Art. I., Sect. 8. Cl. 15. Congress may provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl. 16. And may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.
The preamble to the Constitution declares the objects for which it was formed to be these: "to form a more perfect Union; establish justice; insure domestic tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

See END Note #7

RULES OF INTERPRETATION

"Congress may pass such laws in peace or in war as they are within the general powers conferred on it, unless they fall within some express prohibition of the Constitution. If confiscation or emancipation laws are enacted under the war powers of Congress, we must determine, in order to test their validity, whether, in suppressing a rebellion of colossal proportions, the United States are, within the meaning of the Constitution, at war with its own citizens? Whether confiscation and emancipation are sanctioned as belligerent rights by law and usage of civilized nations? And whether our government has full belligerent rights against its rebellious subjects."

ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?

"War may originate in either of several ways. Civil war, within the meaning of the Constitution, exists whenever any combination of citizens is formed to resist generally the execution of any one or all the laws of the United States, if accompanied with overt acts to give that resistance effect."
See END Note #8

"Hence it follows, that government, while engaging in suppressing a rebellion, is not deprived of the rights of a belligerent against rebels by reason of the fact that no formal declaration of war has been made against them, as though they were an alien enemy--. . .. The right of a country to treat its rebellious citizens both as belligerents and as subjects has long been recognized in Europe, and by the Supreme Court of the United States* See Geo.III. Ch. 9 1777; Pickering Statutes, Vol. 31, page 312; President's Proclamation, April 16, 1861 and U.S. Statute at Large , 1861, App.P. 2. It has been decided, since this edition was in type, that citizens of the States in rebellion are considered as public enemies, and are not entitled to sue in courts of the United States

See END Note #9

THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION

Having shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war ---- in other words, having become a belligerent power, without formal declaration of war,--- it is important to ascertain what some of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of nations. It will be observed that the law of nations is above the constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by its peculiar constitution in violating rights of other nations. With this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the rights of belligerents.

Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all the property of the enemy, on land or on the sea, including real as well as personal estate.

[This is exactly what they did to the woman as expressed in end note #9 and hundreds of
thousands of people in this country every year]

CAPTURE BY TITLE

Some persons have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or confiscation, by reason of some of the limiting clauses of the constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemys property, imprisonment of spies and traitors, and seizures of articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the government of 1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in violation of the Constitution, which declares that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be made, Art IV; that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.

THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF WAR

If these rules are applicable to a state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass a title; no defensive war can be carried on; . . .Not a gun can be fired constitutionally, because it might deprive a rebel foe of his life without due process of law ---firing a gun not being deemed due process of law.

If these rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United States cannot protect each of the States from invasion by citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence;.

TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES

The clauses which have been cited from the amendments to the Constitution were intended as declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and safeguards in the administration of justice by the civil tribunals; but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of defending itself against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to its laws, that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the rights of peace cannot coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place upon the same subject matter. Hence the Constitution was framed with full recognition of that fact; it protects the citizen in peace and war; but his rights enjoyed under the Constitution are different from those to which he is entitled in time of war.

See END Note #10

WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT

None of these rights, guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the Constitution belong to them after they have become belligerents against their own government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that sacred charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and destroy. [People, this was the ploy that the Roosevelt and Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. The South wanted to leave, not overthrow the government. The United States always talks with forked tongue and reversed the roles, as they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around]. One party to a contract cannot break it and at the same time hold the other to perform to it. It is true that if the government elects to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties for violating statutes, it must concede to all of them all the legal rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under similar accusations;.

THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION

Nothing in the Constitution interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy property. [Always remember people, that you are the enemy declared by your wonderful supposed government that you, claiming to be Sovereigns, can abolish.] The right to confiscate is derived from a state of war. It is one of the rights of war. The right of confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary consequence of the power and duty of making war--OFFENSIVE or defensive. (EMPHASIS mine)

If authority were needed to support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227; Vit.lib.iii., ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v Mansfield, Cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas; Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. >From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the government has a right, as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the personal property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the Constitution which limits or controls the exercise of that right; and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete title to the property taken; and that, if judicial condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture, the confiscation must have been declared by act of Congress, a mere declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for that purpose.

See END Note #11

MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW

In addition to the right of confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war also confers upon the government other not less important belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and maintaining military government over it, thereby suspending in part, or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this right has been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of California, Cross v Harrison, 16 How 164-190. And it is founded upon well-established doctrines of the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to him in the Constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is constitutional law.

A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT LAW

"Property of persons residing in the enemys country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to condemnation without any evidence as to the opinions or predilections of the owner. If he is the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments towards his country, still his residence in the enemy's country impresses upon his property, engaged in commerce and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and of the United States, and has been decided to apply to cases of civil as well as of foreign war.

CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF WAR

While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the Constitution-- rights which cannot be violated by any acts of Congress-- may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.

See END Note #12

BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY'S REAL ESTATE

The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemys real estate, situated in this country, can hardly admit of a question. The title to no inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were the belligerents.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE

"It belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has the authority, under the constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is exclusive on all other person.

*Such is the language of Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in Martin v Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19

[Jumping to Chapter five and reading what the true meaning of the constitution is, will be shocking to those that think what they read is what they read, and cannot infer any other meaning. No so because the Constitution is couched in technical meaning, NOT common sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8 clauses.]

TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED TECHNICALLY.

The language of the Constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face of it an intention to limit the technical operation of attainders, not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties. If the authors of the Constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by attainder, or by its consequences, viz., forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the penalties of attainder, as there was an end to bills of attainder. Instead of saying, "Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender," they said, "Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted."

This phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The Aworking of forfeitures" is a phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts.

Note. Since the publication of the seventh edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited is authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of that Act (dated July 17th, 1862, ch. 195), as modified by the joint resolution of July 27th, 1862 (No. 63), the punishment of treason is not limited to forfeiture of the life estate of the offender, and is not required to be so limited by the Constitution; but the forfeiture extends to the entire estate in fee simple.

See END Note #13

THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER, NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW

This act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not punish the offender in any instance with corruption of blood, and it does not declare him, by act of the legislature, guilty of treason, inasmuch as the offenders guilt must be duly proved and established by judicial proceedings before he can be sentenced. It is not ex post facto law, as it declares no act committed prior to the time when the law goes into operation to be a crime, or to be punishable as such. It provides for no attainder of treason, and therefore none of the penal consequences which might have otherwise have followed them from such attainder.

ACT OF 1862, SECTION VI, DOES NOT PURPORT TO PUNISH BY TREASON

If the death penalty is not inflicted on the guilty, and if he be not accused of treason, no question as to the validity of the statute could arise under this clause of the constitution limiting the effect of attainders for treason. No objection could be urged against its validity on the ground of its forfeiting of confiscating all the property of the offender, or of its depriving him of liberty by imprisonment, or of it exiling him from this country. . . .But the crime punished by section 6 is not the crime of treason; and whether there be or be not a limitation to the power of the legislature to punish that crime, there is no limit to its power to punish the crime described in this section,*.

See Note, page 111 United States v Latham.

Though treason is the highest political crime known to the codes of law, yet wide spread and savage rebellion is still a higher crime against society; . ..
See END Note #14

STATE RIGHTS AND SECESSION DOCTRINES IN THE JURY ROOM

The jury are by law judges of the law and the fact, according to the opinion of many eminent lawyers and judges. Whether this be so or not, their verdict, being upon the law and the fact, in a criminal case, they become in effect judges of law and fact. Suppose that a judge presiding at the trial is honest and loyal, and that the jury is composed of men who believe that loyalty to the State is paramount to loyalty to the United States; or that the States had, and have, a lawful right to secede from the Union. [Did not the Declaration of Independence give that lawful right? Think again.] Whatever of the opinions of the judge presiding in the United States courts might be on these questions, he would have no power to root out from the jury their honest belief, that obedience to their own laws of their own seceding State is not, and cannot be, treason. [Now you are going to see how they have destroyed the jury to gain a conviction in 99 percent of the cases, say IRS cases, so that the courts control the outcome under the doctrine of the Military Rules of War, and the jury be damned.] The first step towards securing a verdict would be to destroy the belief of the jury in these doctrines [sounds like jury tampering] of State rights, paramount State sovereignty, and the right of secession. To decide the issue, according to the conscientious judgement of the jurymen upon the facts and the law, would require them to find a verdict against the United States
SYMPATHY

But this is not the only difficulty in the operation of this statute. The grand jury and the petit jury are to be drawn from those who are neighbors and possibly friends of the traitor. [remember, a traitor is a "political" enemy as defined by the Solicitor himself and you are a "political enemy" today] The accused has the further advantage of knowing, before the time of trial, the names of all the jurors, and of all the witnesses to be produced against him; he has the benefit of counsel, and the process of the United States to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.* Statute of April 30, 1790, Sec.29. How improbable is it that any jury of twelve men will be found to take away the lives or estates of their associates, when some of the jurymen themselves, or their friends and relatives or debtors, are involved in the same offense!

[This is why the government stacks the jury. Now we are going to get to the meat of jurisdiction in IRS cases. I have stated all along and written about it extensively that all revenue is under admiralty, but very few will listen. Well read the next statement of the Solicitor.]

LAWS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH REQUIRE NO REBEL TO ADMINISTER THEM

Those sections of the act of 1862, empowering government to seize rebel property, real, personal, and mixed, and apply it to the use of the army, [today it is the local police using seized property] to secure the condemnation and sale of seized property, so as to make it available, and to authorize proceedings in rem, conformably to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, are of a different and far more effective character.

See END Note #15

Some persons have turned their attention to certain passages in the amendments relating, as was supposed, to this subject. Let us examine them:
Article IV. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated".

This amendment merely declares that the right of being secure against UNREASONABLE seizures or arrests shall not be violated. It does not declare that NO ARRESTS shall be made. Will any one deny that it is reasonable to arrest or capture the person of the public enemy?

If all arrests, reasonable or unreasonable, were prohibited, public safety would be disregarded in favor of the rights of individuals. [So much for people who believe the rights of the individual supersede the public AKA Government rights. Now I ask you, Are you Sovereign?]

Not only may military, but even civil, arrests be made when reasonable. Emphasis the Solicitors.

[48 Statutes at Large 1, very specifically declared the people of America public enemies, whether of the banking cartel or otherwise, it was already done by Lincoln. Now to prove public enemies have no rights that are protected by the infamous Bill of Rights is this passage in the Book.]
OBJECTION THAT ARRESTS ARE MADE WITHOUT INDICTMENT

The Fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution provides that-- [I let the reader obtain a copy as it is quoted here in the Book]

This article has no reference to the rights of citizens under the exigencies of war, but relates only to their rights in time of peace.

OFFICERS MAKING ARRESTS NOT LIABLE TO CIVIL SUIT OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

That military arrests are deemed necessary for public [definition for "public" means government only] safety by Congress is shown by the act of March 3, 1863, ch.81, wherein it is provided that no person arrested by authority of the President of the United States shall be discharged from imprisonment so long as the war lasts, and the President shall see fit to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

MILITARY ARRESTS LAWFUL

The laws of war, military and martial, written and unwritten, founded on the necessities of government, are sanctioned by the Constitution and laws, and recognized as valid by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Arrests made under the laws of war are neither arbitrary nor without legal justification.

In Cross v Harrison, Judge Wayne, delivering the opinion, (16 Howard, 189, 190,) says:

Early in 1847 the President, as constitutional commander -in-chief of the army and navy, authorized the military and navel commanders of our forces in California to exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form a civil government for the conquered country, and to impose duties on imports and tonnage as military contributions for the support of government and of the army which had the conquest in possession. No one can doubt that these orders of the President and the action of our army and navy commanders in California, in conformity with them, were according to the law of arms &c.

So in Fleming v Page, (9 Howard, 615,) Chief Justice Taney says:

"The person who acted in the character of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander and in obedience to his orders; and the regulations he adopted were not those prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as commander-in-chief."

It is established by these opinions that military orders, in accordance with martial law or the laws of war, though they may be contrary to municipal laws; and the use of the usual means of enforcing such orders by military power, including capture, arrest, imprisonment, or the destruction of life and property, [such as those in the Waco incident and others throughout the country] are authorized and sustained upon the firm basis of martial law, which is, in time of war, [and national emergency that we have been living under all our lives] constitutional law.

END OF PART ONE OF WHITINGS WAR POWERS

End Note #1

Now people, are you still sovereign? Did common people write such a Constitution that would destroy the children so they could be taken by Congress without your consent? I think not.
End Note #2

And you think that the people who fought for freedom would have written and ratified such a power to a group of mere men, Congress, by way of this Constitution that you so dearly love? Are you stating to realize something is amiss?

End Note #3

Now if you are Sovereign why do they call all subjects?

They italicized the words, not I. Without a shadow of a doubt you are slaves to Congress. Do you have to wonder anymore why the state can take your children and you are powerless to do anything about it? And the common people wrote and believe in a Constitution that would allow a group of men called Congress to have so much power when they just fought for freedom? I dont think so, and in fact it has been proven in every original constitution that no common man had a say in drafting any Constitution. The proof can be found in every State archive Building by obtaining the original writings.

Was not Patrick Henry correct when he stated in the June 7th 1788 Convention that the Constitution, "Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting: it squints toward monarchy. And does not raise indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may easily become King. . . The army will salute him Monarch: your militia will leave you and assist in making him King and fight against you. And what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?"

And what of James Wilson when he voiced, "Henry looked upon "that paper" as the most fatal plan that could possible be conceived to enslave a free people." Ok, so what does commit you to the wrath of Congress? It is stated in the Book in big italic letters, which you all should look in a grammar dictionary to see what italics mean.

End Note #4

As stated, the people are "SUBJECTS" of the Government just like the "subjects" of English Rule and the words in italics that control you as subjects are allegiance. Allegiance can be found in many ways. People are pledging the Pledge of Allegiance; claiming to be a citizen of either a State or of the United States; registering to vote; claiming to be a "resident" in the state of the forum; signing a signature card at the bank that obligates you to accept the debt of Congress so you are bound by contract to pay, thereby becoming a "subject".; claiming that the Constitution is yours; claiming the Constitution was designed by people like you and that is the law that you must abide by. All are presumed to be allegiance. Now did this apply to all, even colored people? Why yes, and this Book proves that the Constitution CREATED slavery, and that it took away the rights of citizenship of the colored people. Now, those people that argue that the 14th Amendment made the colored people free might be correct, but it also made the white people slaves when relying on the 14th Amendment, even though they became slaves to the establishment when declared enemys of the "State". Therefore, the blacks just traded masters as the belligerent power, the Congress, controlled them as enemy property as no money was paid to the original slave holders (just compensation) according to the constitution in time of peace. After all it was Congress that took the blacks in 1787 and by recognizing them as property of the slave holder actually instituted slavery of all blacks that once were "citizens" having all the rights and privileges they had before the Constitution was enacted by those in power.

The Book shows the misinformation used by people claiming that only white people were citizens. It also shows that the word citizen was used well before the 14th Amendment, as seen in the quotes below.

End Note #5

Hence the President and Congress via the Constitution took away the rights of the colored people by declaring them property. The Constitution, that you people reading this; believe that you are sovereign; believe that common people drafted and ratified the Constitution; believe that you own your property; believe that you are not subjects of a group of men called Congress, or that of legislators of the states; believe the Bill of Rights protects you; believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well let me tell you that your beliefs are 100 percent wrong. What if I told you that this Book states that treaties and International law of Nations are supreme over even the Constitution drafted by the aristocracy of this country and that even the states succumb to these treaties and International Law?

This Book proves it. This Book had an advisory board of eight professors and eminent lawyers carrying L.L.D.; J.S.D.; S.J.D.; J.D., M.A.L.S.; F.R.B and Ph.D. to authenticate its contents that was written by the Solicitor General of the War Department of the United States. The Constitution that you claim you love so much, took away natural rights of man via the war power and congressional right in time of peace.

End Note #6

I end Chapter one of the Book on this note. The above are only parts gleaned from Chapter one of this 342 page book. Chapter one is only 31 pages. The word "Public" means government only and not the mass of people. It is limited to Congress or State Legislators. You common people have no representation whatsoever. All Congress people do is represent the United States corporation claiming they represent you in the district state that Washington created under the War Powers clause in 1791. In this chapter it explains the specific parts that are war powers clauses and they are; Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. The Book also states that, "The preamble to the Constitution declares the objects for which it was framed to be these"-- then it is quoted. I now quote from another authority. Third edition of Cases in Constitutional Law, by Cushman & Cushman. In here they quote the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export Corporation, 299 US 304, 1936. "As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of EXTERNAL sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective CORPORATE capacity as the United States of America." I purposely emphasized the words because the Crown was still the sovereign INTERNALLY because of his corporate colonies mineral rights that he still controlled. This is found in Mr. Montgomerys works on www.atgpress.com. The fact that the United States is a corporation, see 28 USC 3002 (15), is why the United States can seize property of anyone whenever the need arises. The evidence for this is found in:

16 USC Sec. 831x

TITLE 16

CHAPTER 12A

Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue

-STATUTE-

"The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America."

The corporation spoken of is the United States or any of its created corporations that take land under eminent domain, such as the States or any corporation they form in which they own 51 percent or more of that corporation.

End Note #7

So in time of war, which a national emergency falls under, even though no shooting or invasion has occurred, then all the Constitution that you so dearly love and would die for, is the very same document that allows all the presidents since Washington to; declare the first emergency powers act to institute the first Bank of the United States in direct contradiction to the Constitution in time of peace; Lincoln who made the people the enemy of the United States and its Union Members, the States; Roosevelt declaring the national emergency in 1933 under the war powers act and the trading with the enemy act; to the present President Clinton to control you as citizen/subjects/ slaves with the system designed and drafted by the landed aristocracy in treaty with the Crown. That is why the Solicitor, Whiting, stated that International Law of Nations and Treaty rein supreme and not the Constitution when emergency powers are invoked. This I exposed by court cases in my book The New History of America. The Big Lie is now even more evident and I have just scratched the surface of the first chapter of eight, in this book of War Powers, by Whiting.

In the second chapter we find the Congress has the power under the war power clauses to write statutes in aid of the President "in the final and permanent conquest of a public enemy." I cannot impress upon the reader the words conquest and public enemy and I implore you to study these words on your own in any library and to save you time, Mr. Montgomery has posted much of this documentation on the web site previously mentioned. This Book pertains to the time of the civil war but has far reaching consequences in the principals it spells out.

End Note #8

Right here is proof that if Congress pass laws that are repugnant to human rights, and there has been a total erosion of many, many freedoms of Americans, as you well know, then Whiting is stating that the people, who are perceived by people themselves to be Sovereigns, are without any such power to correct the law or laws repugnant to their rights. If the people were truly Sovereigns as they claim, no such section in the constitution created by the common man would exist. For if in doing so, the people would have declared that they elected another King or dictator, and to thwart these rights the people claim as sovereigns, all the President or Congress has to do is invoke the emergency powers Act. Such was done in 1933 when people demanded their money from the banks that stole all their money. You know, the ones that you have signed the signature card agreeing to accept the National debt? This right to seek a return of money deposited in the banks for safe keeping was thwarted by Roosevelt to protect all the banks, which, included his friend Rockefeller who owned the Chicago bank and would lose all his holdings if forced to return the people’s money that was rightfully theirs. This was called suppression by government because they were suppressing a rebellion of the people to claim what was rightfully theirs from a private banking system that was now under the supposed control of the United States as it acted as the agent for the United States when the United States did away with a truly Independent Treasury by the Act of 1920 in the year 1921, making the PRIVATE federal reserve system the fiscal agent of the United States.

End Note #9

Although this Book deals with the Civil War, the principles laid out are for any emergency declared under the War Power clauses, not just the Civil war of 1860's, but Roosevelts invoking of that Act, which to this day still exists. So the following must be read with this in mind when considering that a majority of people say there is no more constitution. There is a Constitution, as it is constitutional for what the government does to you today under war powers---like take your land as most people in confrontation with farm land or wet lands would agree; confiscate car, home and whatever under the war on Drugs with out due process of any law that would exist in time of peace; license and number all people to track the public enemies, that being you. It would behoove the reader to seek the definitions of belligerent in both legal and standard dictionaries. The United States, as belligerent, IS the de facto government although constitutional, when people read the definitions closely.

I am at this point, inserting what came off the Internet of the hearings before Congress, of just one evidence of the confiscation of hundreds of thousands every year, that, in time of peace and not under war powers, would have never taken place. When reading this keep in mind what you have already read and are about to read after this actual happening.

Introductory statement at the Judiciary Hearing, July 22, 1996. Rayburn Building.

To: House of Representatives / Committee on the Judiciary / Civil Forfeiture Reform

I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in person about my mother's experience with the abuse of our national civil forfeiture law, a law which ignores due process, encourages abuse by police and prosecutors, confiscates property from innocent law abiding citizens and threatens our sacred honor with the tyranny of a police state. My mother is an 85 pound, 75 year old hardworking frugal lady, who chose to squirrel away any extra money she had rather than buy herself any of the things most people consider necessities. Although she has bought a few residential rental properties, she still tears Kleenex in half to stretch her money, and settles for eating half sandwiches rather than run up her grocery bill. She has never taken a vacation or missed a day's work in the business, but neither has she ever been to a shopping mall. She's always lived as though the next Great Depression would happen any day. By 70, she managed to save around $70,000 which she kept in her house because her Depression experience taught her not to always trust banks.

In December of 1989, the U.S. Government came to my mother's home and took her savings from a floor safe in her basement. Three months later, they seized her home and two rental properties she owned (20 men). You need to know my mother was never charged with a crime, and the police acknowledged she was never part of my brother's marijuana ring conspiracy. Mom's biggest sin was allowing the adult son she loved to live next door to her. After my brother was indicted, he fled town. The government suspected she PROBABLY had allowed him to use her property illegally, and PROBABLY been given cash earned by him illegally. As you know, asset forfeiture laws only require probable cause to seize property. Once property has been seized it is the owner's burden to prove innocence to the government. When this happened to Mom, I thought "innocent until proven guilty" would apply in her case and she would immediately get her cash back. Trusting the government, I didn't even hire an attorney then for that matter. I soon learned later that under the Constitution a citizen isn't afforded innocent until proven guilty in civil forfeiture cases. She wasn't considered innocent and the government didn't have to prove anything. The $70,000 they took from mom was mostly old bills dated from the 60's and 70's and was covered with mold and mildew. The safe was rusted shut and had to be drilled open. Tragically, the FBI did not keep her cash in an evidence locker, but deposited her money into a bank, co-mingling it with other people's money and thus destroying her evidence and proof of innocence.

The morning government agents banged on Mom's door telling her they were there to seize her home, it included the local police, County Sheriff's Dept., U.S. Marshall's Service, several FBI agents, and IRS agents (about 20 in all). All this force to take some property from one, innocent, unarmed, law abiding 70 year old, 85 pound woman. I immediately called our family attorney and he met me at Mom's house. It had previously been said to me by an agent, "They want to take everything your mother has a make her tell what she knows about your brother, and maybe it will make him come back, too !"

When I arrived at Mom's home she was in a daze. One agent had a camcorder going on her as she sat there in her old negligee at 8:00 AM. She said she asked the agents where she was suppose to live and was told, "I don't care where you go, but you have a half-hour to pack up and get out !" Thankfully, our attorney was able to reach an agreement that allowed Mom to "rent" her own house from the government until the case went to trial. The horror of the forfeiture squad invading her home still brings regular nightmares to mom 6 years later. I did everything in my power to convince the government agents that they were making a huge mistake and that mom was not a criminal. To them that didn't matter. Since they COULD seize her property, they did. An agent said to me, "When I first took this case to my boss, he said not even to mess around with it, that it was just another stupid marijuana case, until I showed him how many assets we could get!" I spent many, many cooperative and truthful hours trying to convince them that this was insane, and finally realized it would cost me more going to trial than her properties were worth. I eventually made a settlement with them and Mom got to keep a little of what she worked her whole life for. They took most of it, including her dignity and love for our government.

I am here for my mother and our Country. It is too late to help her case, and besides, I had the government sign a paper that they could never bother her again. I want to make sure they can never do this to another mother with a bad kid. I have been on this crusade since I saw a Readers Digest article in 1992, titled, Is It Police Work or Plunder, about nationwide forfeiture abuse and Congressman Hyde's effort to reform this law. I bought a computer, joined an Online Internet Service and have been e mailing thousands of unaware citizens to educate them about this barbaric civil forfeiture law.

Nobody thinks it is right when they learn how it is used, except prosecutors who do not want a proof provision in the law. One prosecutor told me, "Citizens don't need a proof provision, those in charge of a case are perfectly capable of determining who is guilty!" That statement, I was told by a Constitutional law professor, is the definition of tyranny. I love the America I knew growing up in the 40's and 50's, but am scared to death of the police state this Country could become with more and more laws allowing forfeiture. IT HAS TO STOP. Our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line against tyranny and cavalier attitudes. In my opinion, no real or personal property should be forfeited except in criminal cases. Eliminate this ridiculous, insane, corrupting law, or re-write it to include meaningful proof, fairness and compassion. It is ruining people's lives and is just another national disgrace. Thank you.

Note: Mom eventually took her own life over this matter.

End of testimony

Now please read the rest of this Book more closely or go back and refresh your memory before reading further. This could very well happen to you. This man, speaking for his mother, has no idea he is talking to the proverbial foxes guarding the status quo to see that it is kept in tact and paying lip service to correct what they know cannot be corrected unless the President declares, #1 a repeal of 12 Stat 319. #2 a repeal of 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). #3 A repeal of section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act as written in 48 Stat 1, AND, abolishing the District States the Washington created to gain control over the people of the States in 1791.

End Note #10

Now one must remember, that present day law is in reality military law that allows the civilian authorities to apply the rules of war upon belligerents, the domestic enemy, YOU. One must also remember that the United States has declared war upon its citizens by the act of 12 Stat 319 and 48 Stat 1, which, to this day, has never been repealed by Congress. The fact that Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b) has declared the people of America "public enemies" still exists, proves it is a "domestic war" upon which President Roosevelt acted at the behest of the Federal Reserve. We have become the belligerent enemy to the belligerent United States. Now mind you that we did not declare war against the United States but rather the United States declared an imperfect war upon the people of America. There is no public declaration as if we were a foreign power as Japan was in 1942. No, there is a subtle declaration in 48 Stat 1 and 12 Stat 319. People find this hard to believe until they read for themselves all these statutes and United States Codes and regulations I have quoted herein. The law speaks for itself quite clearly and after reading them it would be impossible for anyone to deny this fact. Belligerents we are, and with that in mind I return to the Book.

End Note #11

This is exactly how and why the IRS operates, the BATF operates, the DEA operates and all those other alphabet agencies of government, even down to child services. And, remember the IRS is nothing but hired private collectors by the IRS District Director to collect for the private federal reserve system, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund by the United States, that caused you to become the "enemies" in 1933 by 48 Stat 1, which was written by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve. You also must remember at the beginning of this quoted Book, it is said by Whiting, that minors can be taken in time of war from their belligerent parent, or have you forgotten so soon?]

End Note #12

The following proves that you never owned your property and if you did, it can still be taken, evidence the woman's plight in end note #9. So much for the argument that even the King may not enter your house although the cold, wind, rain , etc. etc. may. And so much for the argument that you are sovereign and the government takes a back seat to your wishes. Remember, reader that you have been declared the "enemy" by those officials of government, namely, Congress and the presidents, who you claim to be your servants. The confiscation acts have not been repealed and have been in force since 1787. Is it not now evident that the common man, wishing to be free, would have set up such a government if he were Sovereign?
End Note #13

How does the U.S. government or the States seemingly get around this attainder or ex post facto law when; seizing property of the farmer; people that they want the land for national parks; wet land violations that they dream up; seizures of all kinds of property under "drug war laws" whether innocent or not without due process? The reasons are found in War powers, which are constitutional. If you are not found guilty of treason the validity of any statute passed by Congress, or for that matter the State legislatures cannot be questioned, only if you are so charged with treason, and, therefore, what you thought was a protection does not become a protection under the constitutional operation of military rule by civil authorities under war powers acts. You will understand by what is stated by Whiting in returning to the body of the Book
End Note #14

So now you know that treason is ONLY a POLITICAL crime, how is it that we, the people of America, have become the enemies of the POLITICAL establishment? The answer is very simple after reading my book The New History of America. The political aristocracy who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the masses to take part and become sovereigns as you so think that you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors ever were a party to the contract called the Constitution of any of the colonies nor of the United States. I have quoted the case in my New History of America from which I quote only a small part here,

" to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation."

Lastly, the Court at page 491, said this of the People who made the constitutions,

"The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal- it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute."

We all know it is not us people who made the Constitutions but the select few as stated by the Court at page 520, to wit;

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain." END OF QUOTE.

The only way to control the masses is to institute constitutional war powers to institute a different, but constitutional, set of parameters upon the people. Once the war powers are adopted they can change the statutes to fit the ends they want to achieve. They do it slowly so as to not give a clue to the masses. The war powers act of 1862 now allowed the President and Congress to constitutionally change the statutes that guaranteed the people, in juries, to rule on both the law and the facts. Not only were the statutes changed that took away to power to judge the law but it also took away the right to be judged by your peers. The meaning of peers will be very evident when reading the next part of Whiting's Book and shows why today you have no such protections because the enemy can have no such protections. Even to the point that the jury is not aware of the slow indoctrination over the years that they really do have the right to judge the law, but not under the Rule of Necessity in the Rules of military Rule.

End Note #15

Since I have been talking about these acts of seizure and so has the Solicitor, I think it only fair to produce those codified statutes that were born by 12 Stat 319 and never repealed, showing that the war powers and military rule still exists. If the war against the people, by the government were over, these laws would have been repealed.

Notes on Title 50, Section 212

SOURCE

(R.S. Sec. 5308.)

CODIFICATION

R.S. Sec. 5308 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 1, 12 Stat. 319.

Title 50 Sec. 212. Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection

Whenever during any insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person, or his agent, attorney, or employee, purchases or acquires, sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or employed in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents to such use or employment of the same, all such property shall be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.

Notes on Title 50, Section 213

SOURCE

(R.S. Sec. 5309; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, Sec. 1, 19 Stat. 253; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, Sec. 291, 36 Stat. 1167.) -COD-

CODIFICATION

R.S. Sec. 5309 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 2,12 Stat. 319. Act Mar. 3, 1911, conferred the powers and duties of the former circuit courts upon the district courts.

AMENDMENTS

1877 - Act Feb. 27, 1877, inserted ''may'' after ''any district in which the same''.

Sec. 213. Jurisdiction of confiscation proceedings

Such prizes and capture shall be condemned in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the amount, or in admiralty in any district in which the same may be seized, or into which they may be taken and proceedings first instituted.

Notes on Title 50, Section 215

SOURCE

(R.S. Sec. 5311; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 909.)

CODIFICATION

R.S. Sec. 5311 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 3, 12 Stat. 319. -CHANGE-

CHANGE OF NAME

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted ''United States attorney'' for ''attorney of the United States''. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.

Sec. 215. Institution of confiscation proceedings

The Attorney General, or the United States attorney for any judicial district in which such property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.

Now this is not the only place that seizure is found. I now move to 28 USC.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Admiralty and maritime rules of practice (which included libel
procedures) were superseded, and civil and admiralty procedures in United States district courts were unified, effective July 1, 1966, see rule 1 and Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Appendix to this title.

Sec. 2461. Mode of recovery

(a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action.

(b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.

Sec. 2462. Time for commencing proceedings

Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.

Sec. 2463. Property taken under revenue law not repleviable
All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in title 26 section 7434.

Sec. 2464. Security; special bond

(a) Except in cases of seizures for forfeiture under any law of the United States, whenever a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in any admiralty case, the United States marshal shall stay the execution of such process, or discharge the property arrested if the process has been levied, on receiving from the respondent or claimant of the property a bond or stipulation in double the amount claimed by the libelant, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court where the case is pending, or, in his absence, by the collector of the port, conditioned to answer the decree of the court in such case. Such bond or stipulation shall be returned to the court, and judgment or decree thereon, against both the principal and sureties, may be secured at the time of rendering the decree in the original case. The owner of any vessel may deliver to the marshal a bond or stipulation, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court, conditioned to answer the decree of such court in all or any cases that are brought thereafter in such court against the vessel. Thereupon the execution of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as the amount secured by such bond or stipulation is at least double the aggregate amount claimed by libelants in such suits which are begun and pending against such vessel. Similar judgments or decrees and remedies may be had on such bond or stipulation as if a special bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such suits.

(b) The court may make necessary orders to carry this section into effect, particularly in giving proper notice of any such suit. Such bond or stipulation shall be indorsed by the clerk with a minute of the suits wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required by the court at any time.

(c) If a special bond or stipulation in the particular case is given under this section, the liability as to said case on the general bond or stipulation shall cease. The parties may stipulate the amount of the bond or stipulation for the release of a vessel or other property to be not more than the amount claimed in the libel, with interest, plus an allowance for libelant's costs. In the event of the inability or refusal of the parties to so stipulate, the court shall fix the amount, but if not so fixed then a bond shall be required in the amount prescribed in this section.

Security; special bond

Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; certificate of reasonable cause; liability for wrongful seizure

Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent; but if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered and the claimant shall not, in such case, be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or prosecution.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in title 26 section 7328.

I now proceed to IRS cases to prove the above and what Whiting stated about revenue and admiralty being the same jurisdiction for collection and seizure. He did say that under the war powers "in rem" proceedings are used. His reasoning was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1863.
United States v. One 1966 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 56 F.R.D. 450 (1972);

"A proceeding in rem is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. (hereinafter Supplemental Rules), See Rule A, Supplemental Rules;"

And this next case, United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564; Key 31. "Although presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on the character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control."

"On August 14, 1964 a `libel' of information' (see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1355; 26 U.S.C. 7323) was filed by the United States Attorney."Ibid 565.
Further proof is gleaned from Benedict on Admiralty 7th Edition.

Quoting from Benedict on Admiralty, 1850;

"Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made."
Section 105 states;

"The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant--The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law. The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several States [several meaning separate], the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this."

Section 123 states;

"The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it."

This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument in a contract court of the law-merchant in their civil law under war powers act of 1862. Benedict states at Section 5 that,

" "* * *the civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice."

Remember, in 28 USC 2461, it states as near as may be to admiralty?

Revenue comes under commerce and is basic to the jurisdiction of the admiralty/maritime court. Evidence the fact every judge states you can't bring the Constitution in his court. You can't bring in the Seventh Article of the Bill of Rights. Why? Because it is evident after reading Benedict on The American Admiralty, Its Jurisdiction and Practice, 1850, Chapter XIII section 195, to wit: "So the seventh amendment is limited to suits at common law, which does not include either suits of equity, or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction".

The American people are not under common law or any other law but Emergency War Powers.
American Ins. Co. v Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828). "A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States."

Most people would not understand why such a case would not come under the Constitution. The reason being when in war, and proceeding in admiralty, International law and treaty law takes over. It is stated in Chapter two of Whiting's Book that the Law of Nations, which is International law, rules over the Constitutions. One of the International laws is that of Treaty with the United Nations. So try as you might to oust the United States from the UN treaty, as long as we are the enemy and the United States the belligerent power running the show you will never, under international law that we live under, obtain your goals.

Benedict states at section 204;

"In such cases, the question before the court, is not whether the court has jurisdiction, but whether the party have right; it is not a question in abatement, but a question of the merits of the action. `If the cause is a maritime cause, subject to admiralty cognizance, jurisdiction is complete over the person as well as over the ship. It must in its nature be complete, for it cannot be confined to one of the remedies on the contract, when the contract itself is within its cognizance'." The quote he used is from 12 Wheat 460; 7 Howard 729 Boyd's proceedings.

Whether the party have the right? Yes. As enemies of the State, you have no rights that you call unalienable. And the case for that is called, The Sally, 8 Cranch 382, 384, wherein the court stated; "By the general law of prize, property engaged in the illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or a citizen; the traffic stamps it with a hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership".

In The Shark, (1862)page 218 the court states,

"All persons doing business with the enemy, whether citizens of the United States or citizens of the other belligerent nation or neutrals, are as to their property to be deemed enemies."

Therefore, with all this knowledge as to why you are deemed the enemy, this case called The Julia, (1813) falls right into what Whiting stated in 1864 about the enemy having no rights.

"No contract is considered valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."

Now you know why people charged under the revenue laws that are in court have a 99 percent chance of losing; have no right to present the law or regulations to the jury, as that has been eliminated slowly since 1867; to claim and show a defense; are 99 percent of the time denied all motions that would have to be ruled in their favor. AND, when having a claim against the United States they always institute a Rule 12(b)(6), that claims YOU have not stated a cause in which relief can be granted. This is so because the enemy in rebellion, the cash cow of the United States, the so called "tax protestor", can never overcome. The IRS can seize property of all types without any due process in the courts before they take the property as explained in Whitings Book continued after you read this endnote. Also, for those people who believe that if you revoke all signatures and get out of banking and social security, get rid of all contracts with the government that you are free. Not so, because you are still the neutral under the emergency (war) powers act. You could claim to be the highest exhalted ruler from another country, but as long as you stay in this country under the belligerent power, you are the subject of this government. This is a fact that no one can deny. The "neutral" speaks to the fact that your presence in the state or country makes you an enemy, so to argue you are not subject, because you have removed yourself from banking or social security, holds no water to the conqueror holding the guns, or I might add to international law.]

End Note #16

Yes, the habeas corpus is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right, and it is granted by government in time of peace. It can and has, for all intents and purposes, been suspended. This is evident by the fact that between 1957 and about 1990 only 3 percent of all habeas corpus have been granted. Now, all this material so far has proven one thing. That is, the people of America who thought they were sovereign; who thought government was their servant; who thought the Constitution was their doing; who thought the Bill of Rights were written for them; who thought the constitution was there to protect them; who thought that white citizens were always above the blacks; who thought the term "citizen" did not show up until after the Fourteenth Amendment; who never realized that blacks voted, held office, held military commissions before the 1787 Constitution; who did not realize that the 1787 Constitution enslaved the black people by considering them property by the institution of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; who thought the constitution was over all treaty law or International law of nations; who thought we were living in times of peace; who do not believe they are considered "public" enemies; who believe that they are free, are sorely mistaken. So let us move along in the Book and destroy some more myths. One has to remember that this Book was written during Civil war and talks about military law, the principles apply to this very day, even though you do not see uniformed officers behind the desks of the alphabet agencies of government, although you do see quasi military presence in the form of a police officer that is termed "law enforcement."

They are no longer peace officers.]

End Note #17

Turning to Whiting's separate section Titled, The Return of the Rebellious States to the Union, we see the mindset of government, our enemy, as so aptly stated by Albert J. Nock in his book, Our Enemy, The State. It shows that the people of the South and the North became enemies of the United States, AKA Congress, because the southern states could not be admitted back into the Union and have disabilities different than the north. So Congress over rode President Johnsons veto of the war powers after Johnson decreed the war powers over, and then Congress declared that in order to have all states on equal footing they would continue the emergency war powers to include all the people in the States of the Union to be enemies, subject to the confiscation acts of 12 Stat 319. The section on Reconstruction of the Union shows that the southern States were forced into submitting to the United States, thereby showing, for all to see, that the Constitution is of "No Authority" as stated by eminent Jurist Lysander Spooner.

The South had sought to be free from the Union as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that whenever government ceased to be what it was supposed to be, they had the right to secede. Such was not the case and shows the fraud of the Constitution for what it is. For if the abuses could not be remedied the South sought to only do what the Constitution stated, and that was to form a new government, but not touch the present government of the North. They did not want to overthrow the old government. This also proves that the Treaty of 1783 still is supreme over the Constitution which the treaty created. This I brought forth in my book The New History of America by quoting from the First Circuit Court of the United States operating in North Carolina in 1796. Before closing Part one I might add that the emergency power can continue absent any war that started it. The case for one to read on this is Woods v Miller, 333 U.S. 138; 68 S. Ct. 421; 92 Led 596 (1948). This dealt with the rent control act that was declared unconstitutional by the District court. It was appealed directly to the Supreme court and it reversed the District courts judgement, declaring that because although the war was over the rent act was a direct and immediate cause when invoking the war powers/Emergency powers of Congress and therefore was constitutional and could continue as it likened it to "police power". Justice Jackson concurring stated, "I think we can hardly deny that the war power is a valid ground for federal rent control now as it has been at anytime. We still are technically in a state of war."

Therefore, the emergency powers invoked by the Congress in the Reconstruction Acts and Roosevelts Emergency Powers Acts are still "technically" alive and well and have never been repealed by Congress. One more nail in the coffin of the MYTH that the common man is Sovereign is the fact that when the case of Ex parte Milligan was heard it was a conclusion that the Court would find the Reconstruction Acts unconstitutional because of the establishment of the military government throughout the South. The court did not. Then two years later the case of Ex Parte McCardle came before the Supreme Court. McCardle was a southern editor of a Newspaper. He used the statute designed, ironically, to protect the rights of Negroes and federal officers in the South. The Court unanimously agreed that the statute gave it jurisdiction in McCardles case. Then with McCardle's case already concluded, Congress undertook to block a decision of the Court by repealing the law by which jurisdiction to hear McCardles appeal had been conferred. The repeal occurred and McCardle lost. What happened is that Over 100 years since Ex parte McCardle, the action of the Congress in lopping off of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in order to forestall an unwanted decision has been generally regarded as a regrettable legislative assault upon the independence of the Court-- a precedent which it was hoped would not be followed.

This shows the power that Congress and the President has under the war powers. This is why there is no separation of the departments of government under emergency rule. This is why the Supreme Court of today, cannot rule against the emergency war powers in effect. The Court is controlled by Congress, CONSTITUTIONALLY, under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. I would say, in conclusion, of Part one, that the Congress has continued its Sovereignty by invoking the War Powers and Reconstruction Acts starting March 2, 1867, so that they may invade and strip the rights of the people so as to gain more control than they had in time of peace under the Constitution. The Congress are the ultimate administrators of not only the District Courts in time of peace, but has the control of the allegedly separate branch called the Supreme Court under War Powers. This only further proves that the common man was never a Sovereign to begin with, despite all the hoopla and conjecture that he is. By the term "common man" it is meant the man on the street, the laborer. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Jay, etc., etc, were not the "common man". They were aristocracy, had money, had land, all had holding in the mother country, England, and were what was called the landed people. They were the People spoken of in "We the People" in the preamble, not the Acommon man". The fact that grammatically the third word in a sentence, being capitalized, denote a specific class when it is capitalized, therefore, People did not include the "common man".

If indeed it meant all the people it would have read "We the people". Pull any English Grammar book and you will see for yourselves what I say is correct. The lip service and spin doctors have done a wonderful job of hiding the true character of the common man for all these years, that being, he is a subject here in America, the same as he was a subject under the Crown, only here he is called a "citizen". There is no difference. This was proven in my book The New History of America, which, was written with documented facts that were worded as if I wrote it all without documentation, except for the direct quotes.

END of PART ONE

Against The Grain: http://www.atgpress.com/index.htm

Link to this document: http://freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=8434

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Treason In Government! Admiralty Law!: http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html

Who is running America?. Through Admiralty Law they have captured us ... Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force ...

Jack Lancaster
www.jackaikenlancaster.4t.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Luis Ewing
at (253) 226-3741 or rcwcodebuster @ comcast.net or rcwcodebuster @ yahoo.com or rcwcodebuster @ gmail.com or rcwcodebuster @ gmail.com

The ATTORNEYS are RUNNING AMERIKA!

The 1 and ONLY way that we can TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY is to take down and DESTROY ALL STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS period!!!!

Take back CONTROL OF THE LAW and WE THE PEOPLE WILL CONTROL EVERYTHING.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 1: EVERY JUDGE is a member in good standing of THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 2: EVERY PROSECUTOR is a member in good standing of THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 3 EVERY ATTORNEY in THE YELLOW PAGES is a member in good standing of THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 4: EVERY PUBLIC DEFENDER is a member in good standing of THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 5: DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF AND YOU WILL SOON FIND OUT THAT BETTER THAN 90% OF ALL LAW SKOOLS ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL BY THE "JESUITS."

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 6: MOST GOVERNORS IN ALL OF THE FIFTY CORPORATE STATES ARE IN FACT ATTORNEYS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 7: ATTORNEYS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION HAVE INFILTRATED AND TAKEN 40% TO 60% OR MORE SEATS IN BOTH HOUSES OF ALL 50 STATE LEGISLATURES AS A PRIVATE STEERING COMMITTEE SO THAT THEY CAN PASS MORE LAWS TO FURTHER ENRICH THE STATE COFFERS AND CAFR'S AND THE JUDGES RETIREMENT FUNDS.

CONSPIRACY FACT NO. 8: ATTORNEYS CREATED "TITLE COMPANIES" TO CHARGE YOU MORE MONEY IN THE FORM OF FEES AND ALSO TO GET AWAY WITH ENCUMBERING PROPERTY THAT WAS NOT PROPERLY REMOVED FROM THE TORRENS REGISTRATION WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A FELONY! -- By the way, there is NO requirement that you have to go to a TITLE COMPANY in the 1st place!

The 1 and ONLY way that WE THE PEOPLE can ever hope to take back our COUNTRY is to TAKE DOWN and DESTROY ALL STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS.

Sincerely
Luis Ewing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Thank you luis Ewing for all you have done....
You are a super patriot and I forgive all yiur sins.....

Jack

P.S I think I sinned once.

The 1 and ONLY way that WE THE PEOPLE can ever hope to take back our COUNTRY is to TAKE DOWN and DESTROY ALL STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS.

Sincerely
Luis Ewing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

These Privately Owned Corporation Are Waging War Against Americans

"Americans Are Slaves" Says Ex-IRS Agent
By MC Kopfer,
published Aug 03, 2008

In a speech delivered to the 'Truth in Taxation' hearing in Washington D.C. in February, Sherry Peel Jackson, who was an IRS agent and certified fraud examiner in the Atlanta District for 7 years delivered the following comments among others:

Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve and politicians have perpetuated this smoke and mirrors - dog and pony show on you the American people for over 88 years.

In my tenure as an IRS agent, I personally saw marriages broken, families torn apart, homes confiscated and businesses destroyed - all while my colleagues and I were out making unjust demands on the American http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1518/american.html people - without the proper authority.

You have learned that the Constitution of the United States http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/678/united_states.html of America http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1482/america.html has been trampled on and ignored through allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve to create paper currency and charge you 47 million dollars in interest per hour - money coming from the mouths of your children http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1347/children.html and the college http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1362/college.html education http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1399/education.html funds of your grandchildren, all the while the children http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1347/children.html and grandchildren of the owners of the Federal Reserve will never have to work http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1427/how_to_love_work.html a day in their lives, and that is wrong, on so many different levels.

And let me tell you, that as a black woman http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1466/woman.html I am keenly aware of the history of slavery. But do you understand that we are all slaves to this system?

If all Americans were able to keep the money http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1358/money.html withheld from their paychecks every year, that money http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1358/money.html would enable them to home http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1349/home.html school, start their own business and boost the economy, save for college http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1362/college.html and retirement, even buy http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1442/buy.html that 40 acres and a mule. So, you be the judge

But now the truth about the fraudulent origin and operations of the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service have been revealed to the American http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1518/american.html people. You can no longer claim ignorance of the truth.

To read her entire speech, Click Here: http://www.usavsus.info/IRSagent-Jackson.htm

As soon as you're ready for some safe, legal, 'out of the box' alternatives ....

.... Click Here: http://www.hbc1970.info

The Venture Resource Group: http://www.hbc1970.info

--------

"Americans Are Slaves" Says Ex-IRS Agent
View All: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/107273/mc_kopfer.html

Central Banks are more of a threat to this country than any standing army"

Credit: MC Kopfer

* Historical Failure: What African-America...: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/913399/historical_failure_what_...

* Doing Business in a Foreign Host Country: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/132604/doing_business_in_a_fore...

* Appalachian Americans: The Invisible Min...: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8611/appalachian_americans_the_...

* Sex Slaves in the U.S: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/599895/sex_slaves_in_the_us.htm...

* Expanding Views of Racial, Cultural and ...: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/821997/expanding_views_of_racia...

* The Responsibility of Being in Iraq: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/511451/the_responsibility_of_be...

* Why Americans Feel Superior: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/186598/why_americans_feel_super...

* Slavery in America -- Today: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/170731/slavery_in_america_today...

* A Sex Trade Market in America?: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/105253/a_sex_trade_market_in_am...

* Stop the Blame Game!!!!:Hip Hop is Not t...: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/51618/stop_the_blame_gamehip_ho...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jerry McGovern

I FINALLY CLEARED MY 1984 TAXES!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

The People Have The Power To Have Their Own Government

Nancy Levant -- "WE The People," ARE the American Government

"WE THE PEOPLE" ARE THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. Nancy Levant. December 24, 2005. NewsWithViews.com ... nation and the downfall of freedom for American citizens. ...

www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy19.htm

Cached: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkyFC.cZILBsBG1NXNyoA/SIG=186srmeuk/EXP=122...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Americans Against The Use Of Private Crown Temple Law
by MARK OWEN

There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II.

Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament.

This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or simply 'The City.'

The City is not a part of England, just as Washington, D.C. is not a part of the USA.

The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually.

When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor.

Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms.

In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.

The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerceor British wealth, but the Crown's commerce and the Crown's wealth.

As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion [today, the combined wealth of the banking dynasties is $300 trillion]. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown.

The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar.

The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.

The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America.

To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies).

States spelled with a capital letter 'S,' denotes a legal entity of the Crown.

At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown.

Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a 'color of title.' Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent.

The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the poplulace.

Another ruse used to hoodwink natural persons is by enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a corporation. A 'juristic personality' has been created, and you have entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity relationship with the Crown.

These invisible contracts include, birth certificates, citizenship records, employment agreements, driver's licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written statement of the contract.

Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.

These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a 'bill of benefits,' conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes).

Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, " .citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind"

What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown's debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income.

And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that's you) can be held personally liable for the Crown's debt.

The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn't have been possible were in not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it - as an operation of law - the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.

Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read.

The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.

When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.

A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security.

Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.

Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven't died yet.

But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice.

For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a 'stranger to the public trust,' forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things.

Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of 'denizen' enacted. If there are any persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them.

* Mark Owen can be reached at arkowen10 @ hotmail.com

Permanent link: http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/how-the-crown-rules-the-world

Copyright (C) 2001-2008: The Rose Garden - The Universal Seduction series and material listed on our authors' page - All Rights Reserved. The Rose Garden and The Universal Seduction, Piercing the Veils of Deception is a registered trademark. The collective authorship takes no responsibility for articles authored by others. They are posted for your reading edification and we are neither advocating nor disavowing the information found therein. * Republication and re-dissemination of articles with an asterisk is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

The Privately Owned Legal System Is Ripping Off Americans

WANT OF JURISDICTION

No matter what the system does or says, they can never actually have or acquire jurisdiction over any living soul. The living man/woman I.E. soul can never fall under their jurisdiction ever for the following reasons.

1. Man created the fictional characters of the public servants, courts and judges. Man is the supreme authority over what he creates. Our spiritual founding fathers state that: There can be no right against that which the right depends.

2. The system uses presumption and assumption of jurisdiction in a silent manner where there is absolutely no disclosure of the facts that the system is making an assumption of your status where you suddenly exist under them. Because they are doing this in silence they are in fact going against their own laws of contracts, where it says that an undisclosed agreement is void if all parties are not in full agreement to the terms of the contract. This is nothing more than a twisting of the mind to force themselves upon that which they have no right over.

3. The only way a living man can give up his Sovereignty, as a living soul is to actually speak the words that gives his own authority over to another thing such as a public servant. OR if he makes a contract that specifically states he has allowed someone else to take control of him and his affairs to be handled by a fictional character and where he has signed this contract in full knowledge and willingness of the relinquish of Sovereignty. A state privilege is a contract but it is not a contract that specifically says that accepting this or that from the state or the feds that the living man agrees to give up his Sovereignty. Just because he accepted something from a fictional agency doesn_t mean that he is willing to relinquish his Sovereignty or control of himself to another. There is no mention of this and so it is not a part of the privilege or any undisclosed contract that can be assumed by any public servant. Walking into a courtroom as a Sovereign the man actually remains the Sovereign. The courts assume that you have given them jurisdiction in silence upon entrance when the man did not give away anything at all. This assumption is the fraud of the fictional system and is totally against everything God stands for in the spiritual world of the living soul. This is a twisting of the mind and facts as they really stand in the kingdom of God at all times no matter what. The courts are always in existence in the kingdom of God at all times too. Now for a catch 22, if a man were to give up his Sovereignty to a court or a public servant what would happen. The answer is absolutely nothing. The reason is that a fictional character requires a living being to animate it or it will just lay dormant. So you see when you do give your Sovereignty over to those that say they are public servants you are actually giving it to another living man or woman who is equal to you in every way and thus is unable to judge you in Gods kingdom. More about this below

4. These assumptions are actually being made by other humans of equal free will as all the rest of us, but they are doing a dark deed against the rights of others when they do this so KARMA is created by them for doing so. These dark deeds are acted out from a fictional character standpoint where the fiction is actually beneath the living soul. The living man who dons the robes of the fictional character is in fact working against others on purpose, which is actually just working against themselves under the rules of KARMA. They will have to rebalance this KARMA on their own at a later time before they can evolve as required and decreed by God. Even the courts stand in the kingdom of God as nothing can exist outside of that kingdom, if it could get out it would just disappear entirely because all matter in the universe is bound together by the energy of the all that is I.E. God.

5. Assumption can never create a right by someone else over another. Hidden assumptions in accepting a privilege from any fictional character such as a state or federal agency does not constitute a valid contract where the Sovereign gave up his Sovereignty on purpose to a fictional character or public servant. Mere want of jurisdiction does not create jurisdiction and never can.

6. All who stand in there own truth as a Sovereign may come under fire or threat of loss of something from the fictional systems but they are just using force to take and keep control over others. This force is actually just proof that they know they have no jurisdiction over the living but they are trying to maintain the illusion that they do have this authority but actually do not and they know it. God never gave another man the right or ability to judge his brothers and sisters. It says that Judge not thy neighbor in the words of the holy scripts. In the words of the master Jesus it says: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:1-6).

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Romans 2:1). Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. (I Corinthians 6:1,4-7)

Scripture is explicit: taking another Christian or living man to court is an "utter failure." What, then, should we as believers do when we have disputes that normally call for litigation? Paul recommends that we take the matter before wise believers who can make a judgment (I Corinthians 5:3-5; I Corinthians 6:4-5). But suppose we can't arrange that? Then Paul says it would be better to "accept wrong" than to go before unbelievers for judgment. Why? Well, because the court system doesn't base their decisions on what the Bible says but rather opinion. Remember, the Bible tells us that "judgment must begin at the house of God" (I Peter 4:17).

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican" (Matthew 18:15-17).

The Bible tells us that we are called to judge reputed prophets by their fruits:

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:16-20).

These passages are saying that those that go against the free will of another are making a judgment upon them and that is not acceptable in the kingdom of God. We all live in the kingdom of God but some are dark in there souls and do not see what they are doing to themselves or to any one else. KARMA will require they be rendered into situations that bring up there imbalances from their past deeds and settle them before moving up the ladder of evolution. The fault is that we as men have turned to laws to judge one another but God has said that to do this is a fault of our discernment between men of equal free will, where no one can make a judgment upon another brother of equal free will.

Taking into account for today all that was taught over 2000 years ago still holds true today if interpreted from the way they spoke back then to the way, we speak today. All in all no man has a right to judge his brothers and sisters and we are all brothers and sisters of equal free will and equal rights. However the corrupt souls working against the rest of the world for total domination don_t see things in the light of truth they only see the profit they can gain from world domination and slavery of mankind into their will.

In Service to Humanity for the Light of Truth

Lightworker

Joseph Collins

www.discharge-debt.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Alternative Internet Law School Teaches The Truth About The U.S. ...

A former California lawyer establishes the Ed Rivera Internet Law School to teach students and business people the principles that prove the U.S. Supreme Court is ...

www.prleap.com/pr/44768

Cached: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkjsfKsdImdcAxExXNyoA/SIG=171i3r21r/EXP=122...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera Defends The First Amendment and Chronicle ...

PR: Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera of non-traditional law school, Ed Rivera Internet Law School, explains why a non-judicial Supreme Court cannot consider the Bill of Rights ...
www.prweb.com/releases/2006/8/prweb425828.htm

Cached: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkjx8KsdIqmcBbsRXNyoA/SIG=17mqlf25p/EXP=122...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Rick Silenced For Telling Truth About The Legal System

Welcome to the Rick Stanley Liberty Activism Website!

1948) no presumption to jurisdiction. Stanard v. Olesen, 347, U.S. 609, 74 S. Ct. 768, 98 L.Ed. ... that a court may gain jurisdiction over the person when the ...

http://www.stanley2002.org/courtcases/tgc-012003-responsetopetition.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

Want Of Jurisdiction

The system uses presumption and assumption of jurisdiction in a silent manner ... fictional systems but they are just using force to take and keep control over ...

http://discharge-debt.com/id204.htm

Cached: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkixTG8dIfXsBjSRXNyoA/SIG=1b4v7gg0s/EXP=122...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

PRESUMPTION: CHIEF WEAPON FOR UNLAWFULLY ENLARGING FEDERAL JURISDICTION

http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Presumption.pdf

Using Estoppel in pais to create presumptions .65. 8 ... "He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house, 33. But he who hates bribes will live. ...

View as HTML: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkixPFsdIgHsBQAxXNyoA/SIG=1ad5g638d/EXP=122...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

The Foreign Owned Legal System Extorts All Americans

NOTE: Best To Read This Posting From The Bottom Up

From: rivera office
Subject: FW: Notice of intent to levy
To: "Ed Rivera"
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 3:03 PM

Dave, you are absolutely right. April 15th is the day for the bloodsuckers, ghouls and writers of the occult IRS forms.

-----Original Message-----
From: dave
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:54 AM
To: 'rivera office';
Subject: RE: Notice of intent to levy

Roy :

Hey….it is close to Halloween…time for broom-stick riders at the IRS to try to scare you. Read it carefully and I betcha it talks only:

· of a levy on a state refund

· and IF they can find one.

Clever huh?

----

Dear IRS:

The Organic Law Declaration of Independence states that the only function of government, for all men created equal, is to secure certain unalienable rights. I have determined your service does not “effect my safety or happiness”. Governments instituted “among men” does not mean above me. Your claimed power to levy would put you at a “station” above me and invite your “abolishment”.

Two of the key offices of the Wage and Investment Division of the IRS deal with taxpayer customers:

· Customer, Assistance, Relationships and Education (CARE)

· Customer Account Services (CAS)

The statements of missions of both offices http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=101005,00.html indicate the following:

1. Customers have tax obligations.

2. Taxpayers have customer accounts and relationships.

Both mission statements reflect the IRS commitment to provide top quality service to taxpayers, which, one knows from above, are also its customers for which it is a provider of a service too.

I’ve searched your law and regulations and find no appropriate definition of a customer. Black’s Law dictionary defines a customer as “One who regularly or repeatedly makes purchases of, or has business dealings with, a tradesman or a business. A buyer, purchaser, consumer or patron.”

I can safely say:

1. I desire no service even if it is top quality.

2. I am not a buyer, purchaser, consumer or patron of any service you are providing.

3. I have not entered into a knowing contractual arrangement with anything of government and thus have no relationship.

4. I claim no account. Customers have accounts.

5. Your various mission statements restrict you to 26USC defined taxpayers who are customers; my entitlement of separate station to the unwritten LAWS of Nature and Nature’s God does not obligate me to the written law of your employment station or its definitions.

6. Your mission statement indicates you “provide” service. A service provider has customers. I am not that customer.

7. You cannot service two masters. The Constitution restricts Congress to “lay and collect taxes”. If you claim to collect taxes, and in order not to invite abolishment, you must be a “service of Internal Revenue” to Congress. If you service Congress as a provider, I cannot be that customer with an obligation.

8. A power to levy is the exercise of a Legislative function. Once again if you claim authority to levy, your employer must be Legislative and not executive—I,e, Congress.

9. If I am not a customer then I have no customer obligation or relationship and I certainly could have no debt. How could I possibly have a “notice” of that obligation you call a lien if my rights are ina-LIEN-able?

10. You have delegated powers while I have entitlement powers. You have caused a certain belief about my credit worthiness to be circulated in the community to the effect that I owe a certain amount to the Internal Revenue Service. It is causing me injury. If you have the power to cause injury by the claim of my debt to your employer, then you are claiming entitlement powers as above my “equal” as a man, above my ‘station” and not “separate” from me. Such things are repugnant to the first paragraph of the Organic Law Declaration of Independence .

The United States Government Manual in current use and organization chart for the Department of Treasury makes the Internal Revenue Service part of the Department of the Treasury and lists the names of the heads of those two entities. Those persons were appointed by the President of the United States , so I know the authority of the persons he appointed can be no greater than his.

[insert Rivera research here….]

The only “top quality” product or service I desire is freedom, liberty, truth, inalienable rights and pursuit of happiness. Your supreme boss Bush states you don’t provide this product or service:

“Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than 6 billion hours of paperwork and headache every year.” Bush Speech before Republican Convention

Further, the law declared by Congress to be Organic—namely the Declaration of Independence —states that you can’t sell the products or services I desire because frankly “they’re not yours to give or sell to me.” I have no need to purchase from you as a customer for I have them by “entitlement”.

You cannot forcefully “effect my safety”, happiness or general welfare and thus imply a “citizen-customer” obligation on that basis for that too is not a delegated power. According to the Organic Law Declaration of Independence the only stated function of government is to secure certain unalienable rights. The restrictions on government in the AC and Constitution do not secure my rights; to do so government would have to give me something of surety to be held in case they don’t perform. We have already determined your boss doesn’t even offer an oath to perform--outside of an oath to select territorial assets of the United States . Further, I will show that while indeed Congress can “lay and collect taxes” for the purpose of “defense and common welfare of the United States ”, that this obligation on Congress does not secure my rights. Constitutionally in Art 1 sect 8 paragraph 1, the only other purpose to lay and collect is to “pay debts” “of the United States” of which I am not an elected party or employee; importantly nothing in any other paragraph of this section is linked to the debts of common defense or general welfare associated with “to lay and collect taxes.” The Organic-Law Articles of Confederation [AC}, in originating the terms “common defense” and “general welfare” which later appears in the Constitution, defines same as only applicable to “said states” and “their liberties”, “their welfare” and “their common defense.” Article 2 of the AC—which is still organic law-- further says:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States , in Congress assembled.”

The “state” cannot include me for my rights could never be expressly delegated by another--called a “Congress assembled”--to another--called the United States . The United States in the Constitution cannot include me for Amendment X makes for powers delegated “by the Constitution”. My laws—the Laws of nature and Nature’s God—are an “entitlement” while your laws are a delegation. Thus the Constitutional phrase “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ” does not include me in the securing of certain unalienable rights—the only stated function of government for me. In order to be your customer, we would have to exchange. Without a contractual “welfare or common defense” obligation to me by the United States , of what can Congress “lay and collect” for that which is the stated function of government for me? I have no need for “top quality” defense or welfare service; I’ll accept “mutual friendship” and of course the protection of “divine providence”.

From: rivera office [mailto:edrivera @ edrivera.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 6:45 PM
To: Roy Dobbs
Subject: RE: Notice of intent to levy

Roy,
I would like my students to start using the very latest information I have uncovered to begin unraveling the system.

Here is a sample:

I am a student of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, the World's Greatest Legal Mind. I have been learning how our system of government has evolved so I can understand the kind of government organization the Internal Revenue Service is.

The United States Government Manual in current use makes the Internal Revenue Service part of the Department of the Treasury and lists the names of the heads of those two entities. Those persons were appointed by the President of the United States , so I know the authority of the persons he appointed can be no greater than his.

You have caused a certain belief about my credit worthiness to circulated in the community to the effect that I owe a certain amount to the Internal Revenue Service.

The idea is to use the information that can be verified with the Organic Law to prove the President of the United States has nothing to do with you.

If all my students start writing their own versions of these letters and sharing them with me, I can help you all create a bank of letters that will eventually stop them in their tracks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Dobbs
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:56 PM
To: rivera office
Subject: Notice of intent to levy

Ed, hello, I just received a Notice of Intent to Levy final Notice letter, what do you suggest I send to the Director of IRS in Kansas City, it is an Automated collection system letter, no names or signatures. ?Thank you , Roy

RE: Notice of intent to levy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Jack Lancaster

The IRS Pick On The Poor And The Weak Scums At Best

NOTE: Best To Read Thgis Posting From Bottom Up

From: rivera office
Subject: FW: Halloween SCARE Notice of intent to levy
To: "Ed Rivera"
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 2:50 PM

-----Original Message-----
From: dave
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:17 PM
To: 'rivera office'
Subject: Halloween SCARE Notice of intent to levy

Every “WE INTEND TO LEVY CERTAIN ASSets” IRS letters I have seen are a clever scare tactic. The key word is CERTAIN. You have to read all the way thru and in one sentence they talk of levying a STATE income tax refund. Every person I talked to said they didn’t even have a state income tax refund coming.

It’s a Notice to their State brother thieves, “Hey bro’s….send us this guy’s state income tax refund if you can find one…..we have no CERTAINty of receiving his ASSets anymore now that he doesn’t want to be our customer.”

From: rivera office [mailto:edrivera @ edrivera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:33 AM
To: Ed Rivera
Subject: FW: Notice of intent to levy - SAMPLE Letter

Students,
Do not copy another student’s work take freely that which you confirm to be the truth and we will together get the truth down to a few sentences. We will then have our freedom.

-----Original Message-----
From: axenicet
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:13 AM
To: 'rivera office'
Subject: RE: Notice of intent to levy - SAMPLE Letter

Monday, September 08, 2008

Susan Meredith- Public Slave
Internal Revenue Service
Automated Collection System Support
Post Office Box 24017
Fresno , State of California Corporation 93779-4017

CERTIFIED MAIL #

Subject: “Taxpayer’s Copy of Notice of Levy, IRS Form 8519 (rev 01-01) 63518R” No OMB Number dated 04162004.

THIS IS NOT A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE INSTRUMENT.

IT IS NOT A PERFECTED LEIN

IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE UNIFORM COMMERICAL CODE

IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT

IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE UNITED STATES CODES

IT HAS BEEN ISSUED OUTSIDE ITS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICATION

DEMAND to Remove any and all Notice of Tax Liens and top the Harassment unto Perpetuity

Reference: Joe D Freeman, Social Security Number on File.

To: Public Slave and only a government serf employee of the IRS a 3rd party Collection Agency:

1. It has come to my attention that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is operating outside its Subject Matter Jurisdiction and imposing and implied authority upon me a private sector free flesh and blood outside the United States Federal Government (United States)(United States Corporation) for the following reasons:

1. The United States and the United States of America as delineated by the United States Constitution and the Constitution for the United States of America : There are two (2) Presidential oaths of offices. One defined by Article II and the other defined Article VI.

i. Article II Oath:

1. The Article II oath is a legislative oath which all Presidents including George Washington and including the current resident President Bush have taken.

2. The Article II Presidents authority is limited to federal territories, federal enclaves, federal corporations, federal employees, and federally privileged workers, Congress, House of Representative, the Senate and the District of Columbia .

3. The Article II President is an appointed position. The Article II President is appointed by the President of the United States of America and the President Elect (Article VI).

4. This President Appointed Article II reports and takes orders from the President Elect / President of the United States of America .

5. Current President George Bush is an Article II President even though elected via the Electoral College; he did not take the superior Article VI oath but took the inferior Article II oath.

a. This is the same inferior President to which the IRS takes its limited authority directions via the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the IRS

i. The IRS is limited to federal jurisdiction and has no authority or relationship with the Private Sector.

1. I am a private sector free flesh and blood.

2. I am not “a Citizen of a State.”

3. I am not “a United States Citizen.”

4. My funds reflected by my Private Sector Employer have been derived outside the United States and have no association and no trade or business with the United States .

ii. The IRS has no authority into the any of the 50-union of states.

iii. This is even confirmed by the Internal Revenue Manual 5.14.10.2 Private Employer NOT required to Withhold.

1. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/ch14s10.html

2. Private employers, states, and political subdivisions are not required to enter into payroll deduction agreements. Taxpayers should determine whether their employers will accept and process executed agreements before agreements are submitted for approval or finalized.

6. The current Democracy form of government and the Corporate Government configured by the Article II Appointed President(s) is confined to federal enclaves and to federal limitations under the control and jurisdiction of the United States Constitution.

a. The Declaration of Independence is a republic form of government which is under the supervision of the Article VI President Elect.

b. The inability to combine the 50 United States , Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to form one nation is what explains and gives the “territorial composition” of the districts and divisions found in Sections 81-131 of Title 28 U.S.C.

ii. Article VI President:

1. The Article VI President oath is an elected position via the Electoral College process.

2. The Article VI President Elect is responsible for all of the activities of the United States Federal, the free Republic 50-Union of States (the United States of America ), the Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Territories .

a. Now that the Northwest Territories have become Republic States, the President Elect becomes President of the additional Republic States.

b. The Articles of Confederation 1777 still exists and is in place.

i. ARTICLE I. “The stile of this confederacy shall be ‘‘The United States of America .’’

ii. ARTICLE II. “Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States , in Congress assembled.”

2. The Department of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch Article II President which is limited to federal jurisdiction. Since the IRS takes its directions from the Secretary of Treasury; the IRS is limited to federal territories.

3. The IRS reports to the appointed position of Secretary of the Treasury, yet the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms is listed as a separate organization from the IRS. The Secretary of the Treasury cannot delegate is authority hereby, the IRS can only provide information to the Secretary for the Secretaries disposition.

1. The IRS has no authority over me the private sector free flesh and blood.

4. The States of the Union created by the Constitution form a temporary Union made up of states that may be entirely federal territory or just the federal territory Congress has purchased pursuant to Article I Section 8 Clause 17. The of the United States is set to automatically end after any two year term. Unfortunately, the territorial States that were being groomed for admission into the Articles of Confederation Union have all been admitted and the constitutional union continues.

1. In the Articles of Confederation it is the States that are the parties to the agreement not the people. The people are beneficiaries of the Union no burdens are placed upon them.

2. The Constitution permits direct taxation of the people in “the several States which may be included within this Union .” Article I Section 2 Clause 3. The Articles of Confederation permitted direct taxation of real property, but no capitation taxes. Wages and funds received by the private sector are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

5. I hereby DEMAND that the IRS remove any and all Notice of Tax Liens, STOP any and all current and future harassment into perpetuity, and STOP any and all future Notice of Tax Liens:

1. Since I am not under the territorial jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government,

2. Since the IRS has refused to prove that my private sector employment and my funds received for services rendered are subject to the policies and procedures of any federal government and/or any federal employment arrangement.

3. Since the IRS has no authority over me a private sector free flesh and blood.

4. Since the United States is also a Corporation pursuant 28USC3002, and I am not an employee of the United States Corporation, I am not subject to any of its corporate policies or procedures.

5. Since I am not “a Citizen of a State”.

6. Since I am not “a Citizen of the United States .”

7. Since I have “no trade or Business with the United States .”

8. Since I have “no trade or Business with the United States Corporation.”

9. Hence, the IRS has no authority to impose any type or manner of Notice of tax Lien –

REMOVE THE NOTICE OF TAX LIEN(s).

Signed- Your Master
Curtis W Olsen

Owner Authorized Representative
CURTIS W OLSEN (dba)
Jus soli, Juris Et De Jure, Sui Juris, Ingenui

6. Justification and Proof

1. Under Article I, The Constitution that was sent to the States for ratification made provision in for a local government limiting legislation and taxation to a small government District known as the District of Columbia , the Northwest Territory, other territory and property belonging to the United States of America .

i. Article II confirmed the existing executive power in a President of the United States of America under the still viable authority of the Articles of Confederation. That same President of the United States of America would also have authority pursuant to the new Constitution for the United States of America as occupant of the Office of President.

ii. Pursuant Article III which established a Supreme Court to exercise the judicial power of the Confederacy over the States relating to the powers they had delegated and those described in Section 2.

1. The United States Supreme Court, as a statutory creation, does not establish nor can it represent an independent third branch of government. Since George Washington, all “judicial” appointments are made by a President of the United States , who is also President of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, pursuant primarily to the statutory authority of the Judiciary Act of 1789. On the date of enactment, September 24th, Section 2 of the Judiciary Act divided the United States into thirteen districts.

2. The division of the United States into thirteen districts, when only eleven States had ratified the Constitution, confirms that the United States consists of the federal territory within the states. Eleven of the districts were named for the States that had ratified and the remaining two were named for Kentucky and Maine . On September 24, 1789, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States district courts for the districts of Kentucky and Maine could only be federal territory. The territorial jurisdiction of those two courts would not change when Kentucky was admitted into the Union on June 1, 1792 and when Maine was admitted on March 15, 1820.

3. The “one supreme Court” of Article III of the Constitution is ordained and established by the ratification of the Constitution, which provides that the holder of the Office of President shall appoint the Judges of the supreme Court. The perpetual vacancy in the Office of President caused by George Washington’s precedent setting refusal “to support this Constitution,” by taking the proper oath of Office, has prevented the establishment of a real judicial court system. The courts established pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789 can only be legislative courts exercising legislative power. They cannot be independent judicial courts exercising the judicial power of the United States of America , because the power of appointment of the Judges of the supreme Court was granted to an Office of President that has remained vacant for almost 220 years. The President of the United States it should be noted appoints Justices not Judges to the supreme Court.

2. All Presidents since George Washington have held the statutory office of president found in Title 3 of the United States Code. That Presidential statutory authority is represented by the official residence of the President—The White House.

3. Pursuant: “Restatement of the Law Third, The America Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, the Foreign Relations law of the United States Volume 1, §§ 1-488, as adopted and Promulgated by THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUE AT WASHINGTON, D.C, May 14, 1986 which specifically delineates the limits of the Federal Government and the Federal Corporation as it relates to one of the 50-Union of States.

i. “§201. State Defined: Under international law, a state is an entity that has a defined territory and…”

ii. “§201.g States of the United States . A State of the United States is not a state under international law since under the Constitution of the United States foreign relations are the exclusive responsibilities of the Federal Government. A State may not make treaties...”

4. Pursuant: THE CODES OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 200 EDITION, 1925 EDITION, June 30, 1926, H.R. 10000, Public No. 440, Chapter 712, TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS.

i. AN ACT TO consolidate, codify, and set forth the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December seventh, one thousand nine hundred and twenty five.

1. SEC 2. “In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each state, territory. Or insular possession of the United States ”

a. “…shall establish prima facia the laws of the United States …”

5. United States Government Manual Organization Chart:

i. The Government of the United States Organizational Chart

ii. The Treasury Department Organization Chart

6. Federalist Paper #10:

i. “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place. . . The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: First, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; Secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”

7. Federalist Paper #14:

i. “It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”

8. Board of Comm. of Peace Officers Annuity and Benefit Fund v. Clay, 214 Ga. 70, 102 S.E.2d 575 (1958): "The powers of all public officers are defined by law... Where the law creates an office, one holding such office has no authority to perform any act not legitimately within the scope of such authority," 102 S.E.2d, at 577.

9. Pierce V. United States ("THE FLOYD ACCEPTANCES"), 7 Wall. (74 U.S. ) 666, 673, (1868):Bills of exchange upon which Secretary of War had signed were at issue; the court held that the U.S. was not liable upon these instruments, stating at 7 Wall 673:

i. That the powers of a public agent are to be determined by law, and those powers are limited by the law to the performance of specific duties imposed upon such agents; and his powers are to be construed with reference to the design and object of them.

ii. That the powers of such agent being conferred and limited by law, all persons dealing upon his authority, is chargeable with notices of the extent of his powers

iii. That all the fiscal operations of the United States, all the bonds, bills, and notes issued by the government, are required, by law, to be done by the Treasury Department, the sole agency, under the law, authorized to perform those functions.

iv. That no bond, bill, treasury note, or other evidence of debt, can be issued, nor canany debt against the United States be created, except in virtue of a law of Congress.

v. That, therefore, the Secretary of War had no authority, in virtue of his official character, to accept bills or exchange and bind the United States for their payment.

10. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Gordon, 244 F.2d 818 (3rd Cir. 1957): Defendant and endorser gave note to government as result of loan, and upon suit, District Attorney extended terms, for which endorser argued that he had been released. Court held act of DA void as lacking authority:

i. "It is well settled that no consideration of public policy can properly induce a court to reject the statutory definition of the powers of an officer, and that anyone dealing with such officer is required to take notice of the extent of authority conferred by law upon him," 244 F.2d, at 820, 821.

11. Hale County , Texas V. American Indemnity Co, 63 F.2d 275 (5TH Cir. 1933): Suit on county depositories bond, Court said:

i. Public officers are but agents whose authority is defined and limited by the law and therefore known to all persons dealing with them. Their acts beyond their lawful powers are ineffectual to bind the public, which they represent, and their neglect and laches can seldom affect public rights. Many decisions to this effect can be found touching sureties on public bonds. That laches is in general not imputable to government, and that an omission to require a bonded agent to account at the periods fixed by law does not discharge his sureties, is held in United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 6 L. Ed. 199; and this though a statute required dismissal from office on failure to account, United States v. Vanzandt, 11 Wheat. 184, 6 L. Ed. 448.

12. Continental Casualty Co. v. United States , 113 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1940):

i. "Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority," 113 F.2d, at 286.

13. State ex rel McConnell v. First State Bank, 22 Tenn. App. 577, 124 S.W.2d 726, 733 (1938):

i. Bank insolvency case: "All persons dealing with public officers are bound to take notice of the law prescribing their authority and powers."

14. ACTS OF FEDERAL AGENTS WITHOUT DELEGATED AUTHORITY; also held void in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 62 S.Ct. 651 (1942); United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 94 S.Ct. 1820 (1974); United States v. Pees, 645 F. Supp. 687 (D. Col. 1986); United States v. Hovey, 674 F. Supp. 161 (D. Del. 1987); United States v. Spain , 825 F. 2d 1426 (10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Emerson, 846 F. 2d 541 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F. 2d 283 (9th Cir. 1988); and United States v. Widdowson, 916 F.2d 587, 589 (10th Cir. 1990).

15. If a federal agent exceeds his delegated authority and commits a tort within a state, he may be issued in state court; see Johnston v. Earle, 245 F. 2d 793 (9th Cir. 1957); Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F. 2d 29 (5th Cir. 1974); and Rutherford v. United States , 702 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1983).

16. United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 533, 8 S. Ct. 595 (1888): appointment of collector by head of agency. Agent indicted for embezzlement and issue was whether he was officer:

i. "The constitution ... declares that 'the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.' There must be, therefore, a law authorizing the head of a department to appoint clerks of the collector before his approbation of their appointment can be required. No such law is in existence. Our conclusion, therefore, is that ... clerks of the collector.... are not appointed by the head of any department within the meaning of the constitutional provision."

17. Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981): Retirement benefits case. Court stated

i. "Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation," 644 F.2d, at 1383.

From: rivera office [mailto:edrivera @ edrivera.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 6:45 PM
To: Roy Dobbs
Subject: RE: Notice of intent to levy

Roy,

I would like my students to start using the very latest information I have uncovered to begin unraveling the system.

Here is a sample:

You have caused a certain belief about my credit worthiness to circulated in the community to the effect that I owe a certain amount to the Internal Revenue Service.

The idea is to use the information that can be verified with the Organic Law to prove the President of the United States has nothing to do with you.

If all my students start writing their own versions of these letters and sharing them with me, I can help you all create a bank of letters that will eventually stop them in their tracks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Dobbs
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:56 PM
To: rivera office
Subject: Notice of intent to levy

Thank you , Roy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10th September 2008

From Kannan Devan In Reply To Sankar Narayanan

Muslims and their cohorts who are working as paid coolies are afraid of thinking creatively and critically. They have surrendered their rational mind to Islam. Mullahs have brainwashed them into submission to Allahism. Allah's shadows and unreality is reality for them. They escape from freedom and love slavery. A slave has no ability to think freely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 10/22/2008 - 03:02 — Anonymous

Free in America?

Whites, Blacks, Yellows -- it doesn't matter.. Nobody is free any longer. We've lost it!

We're all slaves to the banks.
Free? No, not any more! We'd like to be free again! I hope your neat site helps other wake up and demand "our freedom back" -- no matter where we live.

We aren't even allowed to choose our -- alternative health procedures and our freedom to choose our vitamin supplements is going to be taken away!
We aren't even given the real truth about butter: http://www.deltahealing.com/truth-about-butter.php

Blessings,
TV
http://reikiranch.com/

Love for Life

Search Love for Life

Translate this page

Main Menu

Active forum topics

New forum topics

Recent comments

Popular content

Today's:

All time:

Last viewed:

America Is A Free Country - Includes Background Information On Barack Obama And Lots Of Legal & Admiralty Law Information

Free in America?

Comment viewing options

Support the Love for Life Campaign and the Cristian Family

DISCLAIMER

Name:
E-mail: