Our focus with the legislature has been on the courts and child services.
We have sat through three sessions of workshop groups with the law
commission and countless SOSCF hearings, where the people are not allowed to
participate, there is no record made, and we watch whole panels, say in that
commission 23 I think, move blatantly in the corporate interest.....

Even to the point of judges questioning the process and the "rules" being
made - OUTRAGEOUSLY against our rights....  we have even had judges ask us
to help them with the outrageous things the legislature is doing that is
tying their hands, turning this state into a police state without mind or
common sense or reason, agressing on the people with mandatory sentencing
that they are embarassed at the outrageous things they are being forced to
do to people from the rules made in the legislature.

We have seen them call hearings on an hours notice - totally secret they
pulled some bill no one had heard of and had been holding for that
moment..... on and on and on....  of course the people cannot follow
anything, we work hard to track anything at all, being seriously focused  on
it.....

It is thorougly DISGUSTING what we have witnessed legislators do in our
presence.  NO ONE, is being forthcoming to the people about the CAFR, or the
accountability..... we  have filed into the courts, into the legislature,
into the Standards and Practices, every possible authority KNOWS the
evidence in our cases - clear and certain with a jury verdict right in
Marion County....

This same governor has been on the supreme court as they dismiss our writs
and reward criminals and guilty pedophiles and IGNORE the petitions of the
people.

This is not going to be tolerated any longer.  As Will told the Law
Commission once, Timothy Travis, unparalleled TRAITOR who writes much of the
unconstituonal
statutes" to increasingly agress on the familes.....

Will said to them all "when the Patriots have a necktie party on the Capitol
Steps YOU are going to be among the invited guests"..... and that is not a
threat to anyone - it is a promise, as the people have had it and see the
double standard now....

Back to three branches, BACK to malum in se or innocent until guilty of a
crime, BACK to no bills of attainder and expost facto unconstitutional
rulemakeing....

NO MORE CORPORATE SPECIAL INTERESTS .... NO MORE BAR MEMBERS WRITING THE
RULES ..... NO MORE AGENCY ATTORNEYS WRITING THEIR OWN RULES THEN ENFORCING
THEM TOO....

IT IS ALL A ONE HANDS GROUP, and this is not a Republic under that
scheme.... Amended VII has to be repealed and a new day in Oregon.

FULL DISCLOSURE..... would you accept anything less if it were your personal
case on the line and you could not find any court or any office of authority
to hear your petitions?  People in there like DAN DOYLE are absolute
CRIMINALS and I have already proved it in court.... yet there he is
continuing to be protected.....

NO, it is intolerable anything less than all you guys coming clean in front
of the PEOPLE you guys work for, we are the authority and it is all inside
out.....  the criminal acts of so many of  the legislators is
unconscionable..... they are destroying families - stealing homes - raping
babies and murdering children and seizing children and homes without
contract and for no crime.... how can that be accepted???

NO.

Thanks for your response, and hopefully you will pass on the information we
send out for the edification of others.....  this is about human rights and
any who think this does not apply to them is in error about what their own
rights are.  There has to be an accounting now.

pamela gaston



-----Original Message-----
From: Kaylobee@... <Kaylobee@...>
To: avoice@... <avoice@...>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: OREGON'S SECRET GOVERNMENT / LEGISLATORS COLLUDING IN SECRET,
VIOLATING T...


Dear Pamela:

Thank you for the information.  I'll comment...

Party caucuses are something that I've experienced in all three of my
legislative sessions.  I do not see all of the dastardly negatives that
closed caucuses allegedly cause.  For example, in the caucus we never allow
a quorum (majority) of that committee to be present when issues are
discussed.  Furthermore, all committee meetings are in public and votes and
comments are recorded.  On the House floor, all speeches and votes are
public record as well.  Finally, our legal people, Legislative Counsel, have
ruled that what we are doing is legal.

No committee meetings currently take place without one hours' notice.  Prior
to a rule change, which always occurs when the session is nearing
adjournment, the announced time prior to a committee meeting was 24 hours.
Most of us Committee Chairs gave at least a 48-hour notice and sometimes
much longer (an announcement would be made on Friday morning for a Tuesday
afternoon meeting, for example).

I agree that the attorney/client privilege being imposed on the newspapers'
request to see legislators' bill requests to print bills seems questionable.
But upon closer examination, what else could it be?  Certainly, legislators
could choose to show the newspaper whatever it wanted to see, but why
wouldn't confidentiality be applied in if the legislators so chose?

I like Steve Duin but I take exception to his comment that "Legislators are
not similarly constrained.  They can blab all they want...and would if it
suited them."  This is disingenuous.  Legislators are exercising their right
to free speech ("blab") and the privilege of confidentiality, yet Steve Duin
rips legislators for that.  Yet newspapers very jealously guard their rights
to free speech--as they should.  So, it seems to me that what's good for the
gander is good for the goose.

Again, thanks for writing.

Sincerely,

Representative Vic Backlund
District 25, Newberg, St. Paul and Keizer

The Overthrow Of The
American Republic
Part 36
by Sherman H. Skolnick
skolnick@...
www.skolnicksreport.com

The Judges and the Shadow Government
http://www.rense.com/general39/over36.htm
7-15-2003

In law, there is a principle described as customs, practices, and usages. In
simple terms, it means certain habits that those who rule us use by way of
conducting themselves. BUT, these ingrained ways are generally not written
down, yet are
clearly understood as the accepted and established way of government.

For example, in the South for a hundred years after the American Civil War,
or as
southerners call it The War Between The States, the customs, practices, and
usages, were that whites would not respect the Equal Protection of the Law
guarantees as to blacks. Lynchings were condoned, and whites would eat their
picnic lunch while watching blacks hanging from a tree. The Ku Klux Klan,
although dominated some fifty per cent by FBI agents and informants, was
more
or less allowed to run wild and terrorize blacks. Some Federal judges, such
as in
Mississippi, were known to chase blacks out of their courts while hurling
racial
slurs against them. It was a customs, practice, and usage, that blacks had
separate fountains to drink water from, in public facilities.

In Chicago, we spoke to an Afro-American lawyer, formerly a government
official, who told us how the federal courts in Chicago likewise mistreat
black
attorneys, even now. He decided not to make any public statements about the
same. Italian-American lawyers told us similar things from first-hand
experience.
Namely, that lawyers of color and of certain ethnic groups, are looked down
upon
by the Chicago federal judges, some of whom are persons of color themselves.
That is, the judges prefer "pin-stripe" suit attorneys, WASPs (White
Anglo-Saxon
Protestants). No, it is not as blatant as having black attorneys drinking
from a
separate fountain. BUT, their petitions are routinely rejected, so that they
cannot
hope to make a living in the Chicago federal courts.

Some of the accepted ways of the judiciary, state and federal:

[1] The buying and selling of judgeships in courts at all levels. We
discussed this ina website item "Buying a Judgeship". Because of certain
circumstances, some of this is even coming out in the monopoly press. Such
as "Ex-Judge gets 27 months in bribery case; U.S. still probing whether he
paid for seat on bench". Chicago Tribune, 7/26/2002.

A popular website (<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/>www.worldnetdaily.com,
6/19/03)referred to a story in a major New York publication:

"In an admission that has New York Supreme Court [actually a lower court] in
an
uproar, a retired Brooklyn judge said he paid $35,000 to a Democratic leader
more than three decades ago to get a seat on the bench, New York Newsday
reports.  The payment, says Thomas R. Jones, 89, was 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF THE DAY', though he added, 'it was not
right then, it's not right now' ".(Emphasis added.)

The article went on to discuss how judges and lawyers knew that certain
lawyers
were "bagmen", used as go-betweens of lawyers and corrupt jurists.

In our website series on "Coca-Cola, CIA, and the Courts", we mentioned how
a
known criminal-type bought the bench for Chicago Federal District Judge
Blanche M. Manning[(312)435-7608]. An elite federal investigative unit,
contacted us.

Government investigators: "Your story, also in the court record, that Judge
Manning's judgeship was bought, is not correct."

Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts: "What is wrong with our court
statement and our website story?"

Government investigators: "You state that her judgeship was bought for one
million dollars by a known power-broker, described as a mobster. It is not a
correct amount. Our inquiry has determined that the power-broker paid two
million dollars."

Citizen's Committee: "So, is that all you found wrong with our position on
the
buying of that Judgeship? That we mentioned a lower amount?"

Government investigators: "Yes, you have stated a wrong amount."
He did not inform us what, if anything, would be done against the Judge and
her
patron/judgeship buyer.

Since the buying of judgeships is a known custom, practice, and usage, what
are
the obvious conclusions? Such as, the criminal-types, or political
power-brokers,
that buy the judgeship and install someone of THEIR choice, then are in a
position
to profit in some way from the judge thus put in place. Some call it,
pulling on the
chain. (In the New York example, however, the retired Judge claimed it did
not
effect his rulings. Really?)

[2] The handling of court records. No accountability. There is a practice
moreso in
the federal courts in the U.S., of the judges NOT SIGNING THE COURT
RULINGS by them, particularly so in civil cases. So, were you, as we have
for
decades, to have examined decisions by U.S. District Judges and then their
supervisors, the reviewing courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, it is quite
evident the
Judges DO NOT SIGN THEIR NAME.

What is the rationale, off-the-record, and behind-the-scenes? Namely, that
many
of the federal court decisions are NOT made by the Judges who are simply a
front. The decisions are made by law clerks, also "minute clerks" as they
are
referred to. In plain lingo, we have long since known that to corrupt the
judiciary,
you have to lean on their secretaries, their minute clerks, their law
clerks,
sometimes just the court bailiffs or deputy marshals, or their ghost-writing
law
professors. Further, in some instances, the decisions are written by former
law
school students or present or former law professors, particularly so where
the
judges are former law professors.

We have given as examples of corrupt practices, that three Chicago Federal
Appeals Judges, and one judge on the U.S. Supreme Court, are all formerly
from
Rockefeller's University of Chicago Law School. (7th Circuit Judges Richard
A.
Posner (312) 435-5806); Frank H. Easterbrook (312) 435-5808, were law
professors, and 7th Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood (312) 435-5521, was Dean of
the Law School. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was a professor
there.)They commit perjury, in violation of the federal criminal code, in
that they
have failed to disclose that they, on the bench, represent the Billion
Dollar stock
and bond portfolio of Rockefeller's University of Chicago. This disclosure,
which
they have not made, is an annual mandatory judicial financial disclosure,
failure to
reveal the same by their signed form, being perjury, under federal law.

What is the problem with the judges, as is their custom, practice, and
usage, not to sign their name to their rulings? The ghost-written decisions
in important cases, not every case, contain judicial perjuries. That is, the
established undisputed facts in the court record show it is DAY. To make a
corrupt and arbitrary ruling, the
judges' rulings say it is NIGHT, and apply NIGHT case law.  The litigant
"loser" and/or their attorney is puzzled. Rarely, if ever, do lawyers
confront the corrupt judges with their judicial perjury. Funny thing, since
the decisions are often ghost-written, the judges, supposely in all candor,
could say, but never do, "I did not write that. I know nothing about that
decision. You can't hold me responsible and accountible. Why? Because I also
did NOT sign it." It is a corrupt and rotten way of carrying out the
unwritten customs, practices, and usages, of the Bench and the Bar.


[3] The U.S. Constitution, Seventh Amendment provides:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, AND NO FACT TRIED BY
A
JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE RE-EXAMINED in any Court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law." (Emphasis added.)

The state and federal courts in this nation have been set up similar to a
church
hierarchy, with a lower court (the local church), a reviewing and appellate
court
(the regional or local Archbishop of the Church), and the higher court (The
Vatican, the Pontiff, the Pope).

By the 7th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the reviewing and appellate
court and
the highest courts, are forbidden to re-examine, that is, to change,
re-determine,
the facts submitted to a jury and made into a jury trial court verdict.

The 7th Amendment in important cases, not every case, is again and again
violated by feudal lords, sitting as Archbishops on the bench and throne of
power as appellate, reviewing, and highest court judges. They commit
judicial perjuries,
picking so-called new "facts" out of the air, and thus justifying a corrupt
and
arbitrary ruling in dealing with a jury trial verdict of the lower court. To
survive,
members of the Bar dare not complain about these judicial perjuries which
constitute a fraud upon their own Court by the reviewing, appellate, or high
court
judges, actually made, as earlier stated, by ghost-writers, and allowed,
permitted,
condoned, and acquiesced in by the judges.

[4] The U.S. Constitution sets up a system of government into three
departments,
Legislature, Judiciary, Executive. It is a violation of these provisions,
for example,
for the Legislature to sit as a Court. In enumerating the powers of
Congress,
Article I, Section 9, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be
passed."

Bill of Attainder is to have the Legislature and/or the Executive branch,
designate,
without a judicial determination, that a person is an "enemy of the State",
a
"terrorist", or a "criminal". During periods of public ferment, such as the
Civil
Rights and Anti-Viet Nam War era, the FBI and the American CIA, secretly
designated U.S. citizens as "enemies of the State" and similar labels in the
records of those agencies. And, circulating those secret rulings, following
up on that, secret government operatives, fingered political activists to
have their phones sabotaged, their private residences and offices broken
into and records of membership stolen, and other injuries done to them as
law-abiding citizens, such as fire-bombing their cars, causing wheels to
somehow fall off their car while in motion, and inserting provocateurs into
peace parades. These secret records justified the FBI/CIA in assassinating
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to prevent "the rise of a Black Messiah" and to
punish him fatally for having one-year prior to his political murder having
made a speech in New York. Dr. King said he intended to go to Viet Nam to
urge black GIs not to murder yellow-skin people in someone else's civil war.
In other website stories, we mentioned how William Rehnquist headed a secret
Justice Department unit doing such things. Later, when he became a Justice
on the U.S. Supreme Court, he ruled that there should not be a court remedy
for these wrongs, and in so doing, did not disqualify himself in respect to
his own prior actions as to the same.

In prior website items, we told how Hillary Rodham Clinton, while First Lady
(which is NOT an official government position), nevertheless mis-used
government power to put persons such as us, on her "enemies list" to harass
and
terrorize us. Courts, as we mentioned, refused to consider our plight and to
x-out
these Bills of Attainder issued against us and others, without judicial
determinations.

Furthermore, the Federal Courts have become, more and more,
super-Legislatures, passing "case laws", binding on everyone, the same as if
done by Congress.  There have been no actual remedies for violation of the
Separation of Powers, the three department system of the government. We have
in the past mentioned about Chicago-area Congressman Henry Hyde who had two
hats. First hat, he was, of course, a Congressman. Secondly, he was also
head of the CIA's "black budget", supervising funds for dirty tricks
including political assassinations. So he sat in the Legislative and
Executive branches at the same time.

Since Judges are not intended to be representatives of the people, and are
primarily chosen by the Ultra Rich, the U.S. is becoming more and more a
nation
ruled by Judges. We have in our website stories about the year 2000
Presidential
election, told how the "Gang of Five", like a Military Junta, on the U.S.
Supreme
Court, installed George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the White
House, in so doing, the high court gang re-examined and re-determined the
facts, even plucking supposed "facts" out of the sky.

Thus, more and more we are being ruled by the Judges without our consent as
the governed.
More coming....Stay tuned.

=======================================

Since 1958, Mr. Skolnick has been a court reformer and since 1963,
Chairman/Founder, Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts. Since 1991, a
regular panelist and since 1995, Moderator/Producer of "Broadsides", a
public
access Cable TV program, cablecast WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS of Chicago to
upwards of 400,000 viewers, each Monday evening, 9 p.m., Channel 21 Cable
TV. Portions of some of the shows, via videostreaming, can be seen anywhere,
anytime, through our website.

Office, 8 a.m. to Midnight, most 7 days, (773) 375-5741 BUT, please, DO NOT
BOMBARD THIS LISTED PHONE WITH "JUST ROUTINE" CALLS, such as
asking us our address which is part of every one of our website stories.

For a recorded phone message, updating our work, NOT an expensive call (773)
731-1100.
For a heavy packet of our printed stories, send $5.00 [U.S. funds only],
plus a
stamped, self-addressed BUSINESS size envelope [ #10 envelope, 4-1/8 x 9-
1/2 ]
WITH THREE U.S. FIRST CLASS STAMPS on it, to Citizen's Committee to
Clean Up the Courts, Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 So. Oglesby Ave.,
Chicago IL 60617-4870.
WEBSITE: <http://www.skolnicksreport.com/>http://www.skolnicksreport.com/
[NOTE "s" after name].
E-MAIL: skolnick@...

MainPage http://www.rense.com

AMEN.
----- Original Message -----
From: avoice@...
To: Darryl B. McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] Re: Fw: FAPT Pro Se group


I wrote it.... you should not feel compelled to be responsible for my
statements, and you can include this.  It has alot to do with people being
empowered just like Sui Juris does, in that people get over their fear to
state the truth that it may be criticized.

I am very careful to write only what I TRULY know and can support or say
differently.  Usually we speak from first hand knowledge, what you see with
your eyes and hear with your own ears, called "credible evidence" in a
courtroom as opposed to hearsay and fraud.

I had to learn a long time ago that even people who do not agree with me or
may be wrong still have points to make, and often the articles I send out I
do not agree with parts of what is said, but I do not ever edit the article
someone else wrote and if there are parts I dont agree with, well, that is
the difference that makes us all look at each other and maybe have the
opportunity to learn something, IF our EGO"S are not out there in front
instead.

This thing is moving fast now.... there is no time to deal with those who
want to argue their points when they are totally OFF POINT and dont know it
or want to know it.   That is why I quit the list.  I have also been head of
groups that I am no longer affiliated with for the same reason.  Now we are
consolidated with like minded folks who are all learning together and
focused on the COMMON DANGER and not out in left field wanting to be RIGHT
instead of knowing the TRUTH.

pamela

-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl B. McDowell <apostledbm@...>
To: avoice@... <avoice@...>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] Re: Fw: FAPT Pro Se group


I am almost tempted to forward this to the group, as is, but methinks that
he would kick me off for this one! (and I like much of the advice from
others in the group...Actually, I miss you in the group very much.)

darryl
----- Original Message -----
From: avoice@...
To: Darryl McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [CCCC-USA] Re: Fw: FAPT Pro Se group



Darryl - once again wonder boy knows NOTHING at all of which he speaks.  The
JURY TRIAL we WON in l998 we WON SUI JURIS.....

Judge Ertsgaards instruction and our affirmative defense ..... does mr know
it all think that this "real" judge in the "real" court just did this to
play some game?  That it is not precedent and caselaw in Oregon that we
REVERSED a whole stack of fraudulent judicial orders in that trial....IT
DOES NOT GET MORE REAL THAN THAT.....

Last year the DA IN COURT - ON THE ORDER THE JUDGE SIGNED TO RELEASE WHEN HE
COULD HAVE SENTENTENCED US TO PRISON FALSELY CONVICTED WHEN THEY STOLE OUR
HOME....

HE HAND WROTE THROUGH "PRO SE" ON THE FORM AND WROTE IN SUI JURIS

IT IS A STATUS IN THE COURT.  NOWICK TALKS OUT HIS ASS CONTINUALLY.

DO NOT LET PEOPLE THINK HE IS RIGHT IN ANY WAY.....

PRO SE IS EXACTLY AS YOU AND I KNOW IT TO BE EXACTLY WHAT IT LITERALLY MEANS
AND THESE ARE CALLED STATUS OR STANDING IN THE COURT.....

JUST AS THE STATE PROCEEDS IN FICTION .... SUI JURIS IS THE REAL HUMAN....
PRO PER OR SUI JURIS .... NO OTHER STATUS IS THE REAL HUMAN.....

NOWICK BELIEVES ATTORNEYS LIES ALL THE TIME

pamela gaston



-----Original Message-----
From: survivormhn <survivormhn@...>
To: CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com <CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:42 PM
Subject: [CCCC-USA] Re: Fw: FAPT Pro Se group


Darryl,

Are you fully qualified to legally represent yourself sui juris in
your own right?  Without limited legal capacity or without making any
errors or mistakes?  Or do you need assistance of counsel?

Being a defendant in a court of law for any reason puts most people
automatically at a disadvantage.  Appearing before the bar of justice
is not something any normal Citizen who is facing charges should take
lightly.  Sui juris means only that you are fully competent to
present your case if given the opportunity.  Nothing else.  It gives
you no special privileges.

Mike



--- In CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com, "Darryl B. McDowell"
<apostledbm@u...> wrote:
> Not 'pro se', go:
>
> 'in propria persona'/'sui juris'.
>
> I don't RE-present myself, I present my case as Free Man, sui
juris. This is recognized in law. Look it up, if need be.
>
> darryl

From: William Stone, III <wrs@...>

The Economics of Pokemon
by William Stone, III

Like many similarly-aged children, my nine-year-old daughter is heavily into
Pokemon.  Being an engaged parent constantly on the lookout for pop culture
that undermines my attempt to turn my children into gun-toting
individualists, I've watched a number of episodes and three of the four
movies that have been released to date.

For the uninitiated, "Pokemon" are "Pocket Monsters," the marketing
creation of Japanese animation or "Anime."  They are single super-powered
life forms and nominal pet/companions of the "Pokemon Trainers."  The lead
human characters of the program are pre-teens who spend their time
collecting Pokemon in the hopes of ultimately becoming the greatest Pokemon
Masters in the world.

I admit it:  I don't really get it.  The animation of the shows is
uniformly lousy (though in this respect it differs little from any modern
animation).  The cultural differences between what constitutes Japanese and
American entertainment are wide enough that pacing and characterization is
generally hard for me to follow.  The dubbing is such that all the
characters seem to be speaking at a breakneck pace, communicating complex
thoughts and ideas almost too fast to follow.

My daughter spends an enormous amount of her thankfully ample spare
computing capacity memorizing the names and vital statistics of literally
hundreds of individual Pokemon.  I am consistently amazed at the sheer
amount of detail she manages to keep straight.  She collects Pokemon cards,
games, action figures, DVDs, and other memorabilia at a rate that
makes me glad I'm in the computer science field.

In her particular case, it's not just a marketing success:  she's the
moderator of an online Pokemon message forum, and spends time role-playing
Pokemon on AOL Instant Messenger.

Thank goodness for broadband Internet.

Again, I don't really get the show at all.  I understand her zeal:  when I
was her age, my parents must have been equally mystified by my ability to
memorize Star Trek trivia.  The frightening thing is that I can recognize
that if I'd have the Internet at age nine, no doubt I'd be doing exactly
what she is.

Yesterday, we were making a run to the video store to pick up Episodes IV
through VI of Star Wars and the DVD of the second Pokemon movie.  It seems
my daughter recently discovered the audio commentary on the DVDs, and was so
engrossed that she needed to rent the movies again to listen to it.  On the
way, she was reiterating some Pokemon trivia, and I was listening
politely -- not entirely understanding, but happy that she's happy.

At some point, we got onto the subject of comic books, and how, when I was
her age, comic books were only a dime.  This confused her, as it often does,
since it doesn't make any sense that they could cost so little forty years
ago.  Indeed, given advances in manufacturing and production technology, a
comic book should cost significantly LESS than a dime, yet today's average
price is at least $2.50.

"Well," I told her, "it's inflation.  Over time, government makes paper
money worth less and less, and when this happens, it looks like things cost
more and more."

Being the inquisitive, intelligent child she is, my daughter naturally
wanted to know how government inflates money.

"Well, first of all, you have to understand about supply and demand.  Do you
know what that is?"  She didn't, and for a moment, I wondered how I would
put this in terms she'd understand.  Then a flash of inspiration hit me:

"Well, think about your Pokemon cards.  Some of them are very rare and some
of them are common, right?  Give me the name of a rare one."

"The Zapdos Holographic card," my daughter answered instantly.  "You can
NEVER find one of those."

"All right, how about a common one?  Something you get almost every time you
open a pack of cards?"

"A Staryu."

"Okay, now suppose you have a Zapdos Holographic card and I said to you,
'I'll trade you a Staryu card for your Zapdos Holographic.'  What would you
say?"

"I'd say, 'No way, are you crazy??'"

"Suppose I offered you fifty Staryus.  Would you trade me then?"

"No way!  I can get a Staryu in any pack.  Zapdos Holos are really rare."

"Exactly," I explained.  "That's supply and demand.  There are very few
Zapdos Holo cards, and lots of kids who want them.  The fewer there are of
something and the more people who want them, the more valuable they become.
The supply of Zapdos Holos is small, and the demand for them is high, so
they're valuable.  The supply of Staryus is high and the demand is low, so
they aren't valuable."

That clicked, and she understood, but didn't get how this related to
inflation.

"Ok, you know gold is valuable because it's rare -- supply and demand again:
there isn't much of it, and lots of people want it.  You can't really make
more of it, because it has to be found, so its value doesn't really change.

"Now, is there anything at all rare about pieces of paper?"

"No, that's everywhere."

"Right -- paper isn't valuable at all because there's lots of it and not
that many people want paper.  Now, here's where it gets complicated:

"Way back when the government first started printing money, the money was a
certificate.  If you had a dollar bill, you could take it to a government
bank and exchange it for gold."

This suitably impressed her.  She was not, of course, aware that paper money
ever had any intrinsic value.

"Ok, now we know the amount of gold in existence doesn't change very much,
so imagine you had a big bank vault with five hundred pounds of gold in it.
You start issuing certificates for that gold:  every certificate is worth a
pound of gold.  How many certificates could you print?"

"Five hundred."

"Exactly," I said.  "And what happens if you print five hundred and one?"

"You don't have enough gold.  People could start asking for gold, and you'd
run out."

"Right!  Now, as long as the government's paper money was actually a
certificate, they couldn't print any more of it than there was gold.
Because people in America might start asking for the gold, the government
might run out if there were too many certificates, and people would get
angry.  Does that make sense?  So when paper money is a certificate for
gold, it's stable.  It will be exactly as valuable as the gold it can be
redeemed for."

Again, that made perfect sense to her.

"All right, so here's how government screwed it up and caused inflation:

"Back in the beginning of the 20th century, the people in government said,
'You know what, this whole gold thing is inconvenient.  Let's just use the
paper money and forget about the gold.'"

This puzzled my daughter.  "Why would they do that?  The paper wouldn't be
worth anything, by itself."

"You're right about that -- the paper is only worth something if people
BELIEVE it is and act like it is.  It's not like gold, which is worth
something because of supply and demand.

"As to why they did it, well, it was basically because they thought they
could control what people did with the money easier with paper than they
could with gold.  What really happened was they made a huge mess of things.

"See, as soon as it didn't matter any more how much paper the government
printed, they started printing tons of it.  When the paper was a certificate
for gold, they had to worry that people who show up and want their gold.
When the paper was just paper, they didn't have any reason not to print
money.

"What they basically did was take a Zapdos Holographic card and turn it into
a Staryu by printing up lots and lots of them."

"But ... that's STUPID!  Why would the government do that to its money?  It
doesn't make sense!"

At this, I had to smile.  "They did it over a long period of time, and at
first very slowly.  As an example, comic books were a dime for at least the
first ten years of my life.  Then, as government printed more money,  it
became a quarter.  Then fifty cents.  In the last ten years, it's gone from
a dollar to over two-and-a-half dollars.

"And the reason they did it, honey, is because the people in government
don't understand what you do about supply and demand.  All they want is
power, and they see controlling the money supply as a way to get it.
They're not interested in what makes sense or what's best for people,
they're just interested in having something they can control for its own
sake.

"There's not a government in existence that, when given the power to print
money, hasn't printed it until it was worthless.  Government should never
have the power to print money, because it can't be trusted with that power."

Now my daughter was truly mystified.  "Why don't people stop them?  Like
vote for people who won't inflate money?"

"Most people don't know about supply and demand."

"Wait -- they don't know about supply and demand?!  But I know about it,
it's not that hard!"

"Well," I admitted, "you now know more about supply and demand than the
average high school graduate.  Remember that the same people who want to
control how people spend money also want to control what they learn.  If
they don't tell you about supply and demand in school, that means no one
will have the knowledge to try and stop them from inflating money.  So I
guess you can imagine why they don't want people to learn about supply and
demand."

"But that's not nice!"

"Well, unfortunately, honey, 'nice' isn't something that government is."

At which point, we arrived at the video store, prompting my daughter to
observe, "Wow, Daddy, that was good timing!  You finished that up just as we
got here!"

-----

William Stone, III is a computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP, CISSP) and Executive
Director of the Zero Aggression Institute (http://www.0ap.org).  He seeks
the Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota.

The People are Cleaning Up the Corrupt Oregon Court System
Roger Weidner

(Mr. Weidner is a former prosecutor who opened up the process for the people
to get into a court and make the record in Oregon.
What was previously unknown to the people, Weidner exposed the way BAR
attorneys and judges manipulate a corrupted process to destroy and seize the
children and property of the people.

Weidner was disbarred in l994 for insisting on making the record of criminal
acts and extreme fraud being committed by the judges and attorneys that he
witnessed in a trial.  Ever since he has been teaching the people the
process of the attorneys in a courtroom, how to go into a court without
representatives and make the record of your abuse, and file petitions to
bring forth remedy.  Also surviving years of relentless personal judicial
retaliation at the same time.

This is the process used to win a RICO guity verdict in l998 against the
judges and attorneys in Marion County, Oregon.  This process is in the book
Sui Juris, the Truth in the Record, A Process for the People to Access the
courts which can be found at www.avoiceforchildren.com.   The People are the
Sovereign Authority.)


After l5.5 years of fighting the pervasive corruption in the Oregon court
system I am finally seeing a dramatic change in the way sovereign citizens
are being treated in the Courts here in Oregon.  I had no idea when I
started this fight with corruption in our court system  that it could be so
deep and so widespread.  For l5.5 years I have simply been trying to force
the corrupt judges in the Oregon court system to comply with their "oath of
office" and see that every citizen entering their courtroom is accorded all
the privileges and immunitries granted to him under both the U.S.
Constitution and the Oregon Constitution that all federal and state court
judges are required to take.  Specifically this is what is referred to as
"equal protection of the law" and "due process of law".  No federal or state
court judge has any lawfull authority to deny to any person in his courtroom
the protection of those two provisions.

Instead what I observed when I attempted to speak in court, on the record,
as a former attorney and public prosecutor, of the corruption  of these
attorneys, judges and other government employees, in stealing innocent
peoples property, was instant outrage by the judges and violent physical
attacks by the guards acting on the orders of the "out of control" judge.
Nineteen times in all arrested, jailed 290 days, while incarcerated in the
maximum security unit of the Oregon Insane Asylum (on orders of Judge
Dorothy  Baker saying I couldn't aid and assist in my own defense, forced
blood draws, cat scans while shackled hand and foot, and continued public
prosecutions and character assassination by these same corrupt attorneys,
judges and public employees.

All the attacks have now stopped.  Instead, now polite guards greet the
people I bring with me into court with respect.  By publicly exposing their
corruption we have given notice that we the sovereign citizens of Oregon
residing in the United States will demand by our presence and public
scrutiny that all public employees, and attorneys licensed by the Bar,
comply with their oaths office at all times when interacting with the
members of the public.

TAX PACK STALLING SESSION TO PASS SALES TAX

As we all know, this session is shaping up to be one of the longest in
Oregon history.  The question that must be asked is why?

A recent rumor circulating among the legislators may hold the answer to one
key reason for the delay.  Rumors have surfaced that a small group of
legislators (known as the RBC) may be working together to stall the
legislative process in order to create a crisis large enough for them to
push through a broad based sales tax.

Representatives Shetterly, Westlund, Patridge, and Williams along with the
help of Sen. Schrader have been accused of this very act.  In fact, it is
also being stated that this is serious enough to have the Governor and
Senate President, Courtney, very frustrated.

Is this a fact?  NO.  Is it serious enough for Oregonians to be concerned?
YES.  The legislature has already passed increased fees of up to $1,000 and
planning to go as high as $225 million with the proposed transportation tax
package.  The last thing we need is a selective group of legislators
deciding that Oregonians need a sales tax no matter what the cost.

Michael Marsh
Communications Director
Constitution Party of Oregon
Fifth Amendment Coalition

(Last week Public Hearings were held in the capitol relevant to the complete
breakdown of the process in the legislature at this time.

Michael Marsh and Senator Gary George testified with 450 others in those
hearings and soon the transcript of that testimony will be on our website.

Right now on our website www.avoiceforchildren.com click on Newswire and
there is an interview with Marsh and Senator George, in depth about the
corruption being exposed now openly in the public media.

The game is up in Oregon.  The People in Oregon are finished with the fraud,
being exploited and violated.)

pamela gaston

http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33531

                   MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

                   Pro-infanticide prof
                   awarded ethics prize
                   Princeton's Peter Singer advocates killing
                   disabled after birth

                   Posted: July 12, 2003
                   1:00 a.m. Eastern


                   © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

                   A controversial professor who advocates
                   killing the disabled up to 28 days after birth,
                   has been honored with an international ethics
                   award.

                   Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton
                   University, has been given the 2003 World
                   Technology Award for Ethics by the World
                   Technology Network.

                   The organization says its members are
                   dedicated to the business and science of
                   emerging technologies such as biotechnology
                   and new energy sources.

                   "I am delighted to have been selected by my
                   peers as a winner of the 2003 World
                   Technology Award in the ethics category,"
                   Singer said in a statement issued by the
                   university.

                   "The fact that the World Technology Network
                   has an ethics award at all is a recognition of the
                   importance of keeping ethics in mind as we
                   move forward with new technologies in a wide
                   variety of fields, from genetics to computing,"
                   he said.

                   The awards, announced at the World
                   Technology Summit in late June, honor
                   individuals and corporations from 20
                   technology-related sectors selected by their
                   peers as innovators.

                   When Singer was hired by Princeton in 1999, a
                   group calling itself Princeton Students Against
                   Infanticide issued a petition in protest,
                   charging the Australian professor "denies the
                   intrinsic moral worth of an entire class of
                   human beings – newborn children."

                   "His assertion of the appropriateness of killing
                   some humans based on others' decision
                   concerning the "quality" of their lives should
                   strike fear into everyone who cherishes
                   equality and honors human life," the petition
                   said.

                   The group called the hiring a "blatant violation
                   of Princeton University's policy of respect for
                   people with disabilities."

                   Singer also is known for launching the modern
                   animal rights movement with his 1975 book
                   "Animal Liberation," which argues against
                   "speciesism."

                   Singer insists animals should be accorded the
                   same value as humans and should not be
                   discriminated against because they belong to a
                   non-human species.

By leaving it intact with settlements and gag orders, secret hearings and
discovery withheld, it protects the system to render the next families....

This is intolerable to us, and we did win our RICO Complaint in l998 and had
that miracle of a jury who we were allowed to fully inform and a Sui Juris
jury trial which we prosecuted our affirmative defense and won....  and then
learned first hand what they do to people who say NO to them and expose
their fraud.

Could you settle an issue for alot of people?  You say you have a license?
Can you scan it in for us to see?  There is a whole dialogue about this in
and out of the internet and since you are saying you will answer these
questions I would really appreciate if you would settle it.

We agree that bringing children home is a win but not a win for the
thousands who are still raped and murdered being held with the same outlaw
statutes being used in the court.  As you know and admit, the process is
corrupt.  It cannot be  defended.  NOBODY wins until we all win, and all the
children who have been removed and no one charged with a crime come home.

The accountability issue - WHO is prosecuting malicious prosecutions?  We
believed as most normal people in America do, that you win a jury trial, and
people go to jail who are found to be criminals but it does not happen.  Who
prosecutes the prosecutors?  This is the biggest problem with attorneys and
is systemic and yes, if you are not confronting the deprivations of rights
in there you are protecting the system.   There are only two options there.
What attorney says on the record "this person has not been charged with a
crime and the state has no lawful jurisdiction"..... I hope you do, if not,
and you are advising them to accept services and do the state fraud process,
that is NOT defending anybody, and no, the child coming home that way is NOT
a win... that is how it all got this way and why it still is not stopped.

Anyway, any honesty about the system is appreciated and your candidness
about admitting it is total fraud in the process, is a beginning to the
people finally stopping their blind trust, giving their rights over to
representative status, and empowering themselves for their children and
their families.

pamela gaston



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stuckle <PStuckle@...>
To: AFCRM@yahoogroups.com <AFCRM@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: [AFCRM] Attorneys have created a corporate court system with new
rules now .... no huma


Dear Pamela:

You said:

" Ask the atttorney about the system in place.  He wont tell you."


I'll be happy to tell you.  The system is corrupt.  We do not have
justice in this country.  We have only the appearance of justice.
There is not much difference between our court system and that of
totalitarian governments.  We have the nice words in our
constitutions, that are subtly disregarded pursuant to a well scripted
theatrical design we call court.

" They could care less what you put in your papers, all the expert
witnesses, almost all of these "trials" are nothig more than moving
revenue and the facade is that "court" is going on"

Agreed.  The only possibility is when a jury is smart enough to see
through the facade and disregard what is presented to them as law.

"they get disabarred for even attempting to confront this systemic
FRAUD.... "

   Disagree.  I have fought this system my entire career, law license
still in my pocket.

"When did any attorney bring remedy to any family in any real and
honest way, confronting that it is the SYSTEM that is by design
violating the rights of the people..... when did an attorney win for
the parents "

    I would say getting children returned is a victory.  Freedom
instead of going to prison seems to be a real and honest way of
helping people.
Maybe I'm wrong.

"When did any attorney even tell a family any of these truthful facts
about what they are doing????? We KNOW this does NOT happen."

Every single day, Pamela.
Assuming every attorney is corrupt is the same as cps assuming every
allegation is true.

I agree with much of what you wrote.  I suppose I could waste time
trying to change legislation.  Seems a better approach is to spend my
time defending my clients.

> pamela gaston

Note how they play down the crimes of this nurse/foster resource.... note
that she was making $3,800 a  month, recertified recently while horribly
abusing the children ..... as is usually the case, you dont hear about this
abuse unless and until there is a body and the public become aware of it
.....  they will cover this up if they are able, if they can they will leave
the other children with her and even give her more..... that is what Oregon
does with pornographer sexual abuser foster parents.... the agency says they
are their "best foster mothers", just like here.....THESE ARE MONSTERS !!!

As the campaign of a voice for children and american family rights WE HAVE
HAD IT WITH DEAD BABIES..... what can be more outrageous than this to STOP
this child abuse industry, demand a clean court system to prosecute and hold
child abusers accountable, including state employed criminals.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-APO-11
10&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20030710%2F100994980.htm&sc=1110&photoid=20030709XNY
R606

Foster Mother Charged With Dumping Girl
By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN

NEW YORK (AP) - A foster mother has been charged with dumping the body of a
severely disabled 8-year-old girl whose
remains were left in a plastic bag amid garbage sacks lining a sidewalk,
police say.

Renee Johnson, a 50-year-old retired nurse,  was arrested Wednesday after
the girl's remains were found. She was being
held on a charge of unlawful disposal of a body.

Authorities said the girl, Stephanie Ramos, was physically and mentally
underdeveloped, used a wheelchair and weighed only 28 pounds. She had
cerebral palsy, diabetes and other ailments.

It was unclear when and how she died. An autopsy was pending.

Johnson reported the girl missing on Tuesday but changed
her account  Wednesday morning after being questioned overnight, police
said.

Johnson told investigators that after Stephanie died, she put the body in a
black plastic bag and dumped it next to garbage bags on a Manhattan
sidewalk, detectives Chief George Brown told a news conference.

Earlier, police had said Johnson claimed she panicked after finding the girl
dead, but Brown described her as unremorseful.

``She seemed indifferent in our conversations,'' he said.

Two other children living with Johnson have been placed
in other homes.

Johnson had been a foster mother to disabled children for
three years and had no history of abuse or neglect, said Maclean Guthrie, a
spokeswoman for the Administration for Children's Services.

Johnson was a registered nurse who retired several years
ago to care full time for her foster children, said Stephanie Drayton, who
lives next door to Johnson in Queens. Drayton recalled seeing her neighbor
carry Stephanie around in her arms.

``She nursed her to life,'' Drayton said.

Associated Press writer Donna De La Cruz contributed to
this report.

http://www.rense.com/general38/hell.htm

Little Girl's Hell-On-Earth Before Dying
By Barbara Ross, Michele McPhee and Corky Siemaszko
Daily News Staff Writers
7-12-3

The little Queens girl whose broken body was discovered in a trash heap
apparently lived as she died - in filth and squalor.

The shocking conditions of 8-year-old Stephanie Ramos' foster home were
revealed yesterday at the Manhattan arraignment of Renee Johnson, who told
cops she dumped the body on the upper East Side in a panic Tuesday after the
girl died of natural causes.

Blind, brain-damaged and unable to walk because of cerebral palsy, 28-pound
Stephanie lived in "the most despicable, horrible situation a human being
could imagine," Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzi-Orbon said.

Johnson, who was paid $3,800 a month to take care of Stephanie and two other
foster kids, kept the outside of her Springfield Gardens home immaculate.
Inside, it was a hellhole, officials said.
Detectives found "used hypos, hundreds of bags of clothing covered with
fecal matter and vomit, clumps of hair matted with bugs and maggots," the
prosecutor said.

"The temperature in the house was over 100 degrees," she added. "The
children's beds were so cluttered there was barely enough room for their
upper bodies."

Johnson eventually told cops that Stephanie had been sick for three or four
days before she died at her home in Queens, Illuzi-Orbon said.

"Instead of getting her a doctor, she ... let her linger and die," the
prosecutor said.

Johnson, 50, showed little emotion as she was charged with improper disposal
of a dead human body and falsely reporting an incident, and was ordered held
on $50,000 bail.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said Johnson could face charges of
endangering the welfare of Stephanie and the two other children in her care.

Defense attorney Murray Singer said Johnson, a retired nurse, was a
qualified caregiver and not a monster. "She did not intentionally hurt these
children," he said.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the coroner has not pinpointed the
cause of Stephanie's death, but said she had a fractured skull and possibly
a broken hip.

"But it appears at this time those injuries took place after the death and
as a result of where the child was found" - in a Bronx garbage transfer
station, he said.

Monthly monitoring

The horrible circumstances of Stephanie's death raised questions about
whether the Administration for Children's Services left the girl in the
hands of an incompetent foster mother.

Agency spokeswoman MacLean Guthrie said Johnson's home was certified by the
Association to Benefit Children - a city contractor - just last month as
"satisfactory and appropriate." She said association caseworkers made
monthly visits.

Illuzi-Orbon said that the girl was already dead when Johnson got into a cab
Tuesday afternoon. "Johnson made idle chitchat while she held the body of a
girl," Illuzi-Orbon said.

Johnson originally told cops she brought the three children to a child care
center on E. 91st St. and left Stephanie on a couch on the second floor
while she ran out to do errands.

When Johnson returned, she "accused the child-care workers of having
misplaced Stephanie or taking her somewhere else," Illuzi-Orbon said.

But Johnson later told cops what really happened.

"She stuffed Stephanie into [a trash bag] and then threw her on the curb
like garbage," the prosecutor said.

With JoAnn Wasserman

All contents © 2003 Daily News, L.P.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/99911p-90306c.html

MainPage http://www.rense.com

Note how they play down the crimes of this nurse/foster resource.... note
that she was making $3,800 a  month, recertified recently while horribly
abusing the children ..... as is usually the case, you dont hear about this
abuse unless and until there is a body and the public become aware of it
.....  they will cover this up if they are able, if they can they will leave
the other children with her and even give her more..... that is what Oregon
does with pornographer sexual abuser foster parents.... the agency says they
are their "best foster mothers", just like here.....THESE ARE MONSTERS !!!

As the campaign of a voice for children and american family rights WE HAVE
HAD IT WITH DEAD BABIES..... what can be more outrageous than this to STOP
this child abuse industry, demand a clean court system to prosecute and hold
child abusers accountable, including state employed criminals.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-APO-11
10&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20030710%2F100994980.htm&sc=1110&photoid=20030709XNY
R606

Foster Mother Charged With Dumping Girl
By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN

NEW YORK (AP) - A foster mother has been charged with dumping the body of a
severely disabled 8-year-old girl whose
remains were left in a plastic bag amid garbage sacks lining a sidewalk,
police say.

Renee Johnson, a 50-year-old retired nurse,  was arrested Wednesday after
the girl's remains were found. She was being
held on a charge of unlawful disposal of a body.

Authorities said the girl, Stephanie Ramos, was physically and mentally
underdeveloped, used a wheelchair and weighed only 28 pounds. She had
cerebral palsy, diabetes and other ailments.

It was unclear when and how she died. An autopsy was pending.

Johnson reported the girl missing on Tuesday but changed
her account  Wednesday morning after being questioned overnight, police
said.

Johnson told investigators that after Stephanie died, she put the body in a
black plastic bag and dumped it next to garbage bags on a Manhattan
sidewalk, detectives Chief George Brown told a news conference.

Earlier, police had said Johnson claimed she panicked after finding the girl
dead, but Brown described her as unremorseful.

``She seemed indifferent in our conversations,'' he said.

Two other children living with Johnson have been placed
in other homes.

Johnson had been a foster mother to disabled children for
three years and had no history of abuse or neglect, said Maclean Guthrie, a
spokeswoman for the Administration for Children's Services.

Johnson was a registered nurse who retired several years
ago to care full time for her foster children, said Stephanie Drayton, who
lives next door to Johnson in Queens. Drayton recalled seeing her neighbor
carry Stephanie around in her arms.

``She nursed her to life,'' Drayton said.

Associated Press writer Donna De La Cruz contributed to
this report.

http://www.rense.com/general38/hell.htm

Little Girl's Hell-On-Earth Before Dying
By Barbara Ross, Michele McPhee and Corky Siemaszko
Daily News Staff Writers
7-12-3

The little Queens girl whose broken body was discovered in a trash heap
apparently lived as she died - in filth and squalor.

The shocking conditions of 8-year-old Stephanie Ramos' foster home were
revealed yesterday at the Manhattan arraignment of Renee Johnson, who told
cops she dumped the body on the upper East Side in a panic Tuesday after the
girl died of natural causes.

Blind, brain-damaged and unable to walk because of cerebral palsy, 28-pound
Stephanie lived in "the most despicable, horrible situation a human being
could imagine," Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzi-Orbon said.

Johnson, who was paid $3,800 a month to take care of Stephanie and two other
foster kids, kept the outside of her Springfield Gardens home immaculate.
Inside, it was a hellhole, officials said.
Detectives found "used hypos, hundreds of bags of clothing covered with
fecal matter and vomit, clumps of hair matted with bugs and maggots," the
prosecutor said.

"The temperature in the house was over 100 degrees," she added. "The
children's beds were so cluttered there was barely enough room for their
upper bodies."

Johnson eventually told cops that Stephanie had been sick for three or four
days before she died at her home in Queens, Illuzi-Orbon said.

"Instead of getting her a doctor, she ... let her linger and die," the
prosecutor said.

Johnson, 50, showed little emotion as she was charged with improper disposal
of a dead human body and falsely reporting an incident, and was ordered held
on $50,000 bail.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said Johnson could face charges of
endangering the welfare of Stephanie and the two other children in her care.

Defense attorney Murray Singer said Johnson, a retired nurse, was a
qualified caregiver and not a monster. "She did not intentionally hurt these
children," he said.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the coroner has not pinpointed the
cause of Stephanie's death, but said she had a fractured skull and possibly
a broken hip.

"But it appears at this time those injuries took place after the death and
as a result of where the child was found" - in a Bronx garbage transfer
station, he said.

Monthly monitoring

The horrible circumstances of Stephanie's death raised questions about
whether the Administration for Children's Services left the girl in the
hands of an incompetent foster mother.

Agency spokeswoman MacLean Guthrie said Johnson's home was certified by the
Association to Benefit Children - a city contractor - just last month as
"satisfactory and appropriate." She said association caseworkers made
monthly visits.

Illuzi-Orbon said that the girl was already dead when Johnson got into a cab
Tuesday afternoon. "Johnson made idle chitchat while she held the body of a
girl," Illuzi-Orbon said.

Johnson originally told cops she brought the three children to a child care
center on E. 91st St. and left Stephanie on a couch on the second floor
while she ran out to do errands.

When Johnson returned, she "accused the child-care workers of having
misplaced Stephanie or taking her somewhere else," Illuzi-Orbon said.

But Johnson later told cops what really happened.

"She stuffed Stephanie into [a trash bag] and then threw her on the curb
like garbage," the prosecutor said.

With JoAnn Wasserman

All contents © 2003 Daily News, L.P.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/99911p-90306c.html

MainPage http://www.rense.com

From: BobfromMichigan2@...

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL ATTACKS THE JEWS, IE, THE NEO-CONS WHO CONTROL BUSH AND
WASHINGTON D.C.

Note from Bob - I have abbreviated Congressman Ron Paul's communique, in
order to focus on the deleterious influences he is describing, though it's
still quuite long, it is much shorter than the full text of his speech.  The
full text of his speech is here:

http://tinyurl.com/gpna

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE from text below: "The neoconservatives-a name they gave
themselves-diligently worked their way into positions of power and
influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for
all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not
conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003

Neo - CONNED !

(snip)

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion
dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding
$984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion,
while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $44 trillion. The
country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The
philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter-and especially
the expanding American empire-must be challenged. This is crucial for our
survival.

(snip)

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad
consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences.
We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to
this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of
intellectual parameters.

(snip)

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished
and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of
9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any
domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help
reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government
were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing
Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This
process-where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy-is hardly
the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of
life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve
for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether
medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth
Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are
endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and
nation-building issues are popular campaign targets [[i.e., campaign
promises against such activity]], yet they are now standard operating
procedures. There's no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed
until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won't be soon) or we go
broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire
(which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas
prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The
neoconservatives-a name they gave themselves-diligently worked their way
into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy
and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else,
they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional
government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections
to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism
was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as
well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and
certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of
present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates
is "hard Wilsonianism." In many ways, there's nothing "neo" about their
views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt
the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form
of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group
historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher
Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been
reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc
consultant.

Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their
status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of
Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation
of Machiavelli's philosophy.

Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated
with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William
Kristol.

All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others
include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA
Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney;
Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are
philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some
varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving
Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his
publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also
defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are
the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general
understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as
intellectual.

2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use
force to do so.

3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means-that hardball
politics is a moral necessity.

5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly
endorse it.

7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be
held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to
deal with it.

10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.
Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to
all strict constitutionalists.)

16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the
Patriot Act, as being necessary.

17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the
Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a
significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives.

It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments
needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its
respectability.

It is no secret-especially after the rash of research and articles written
about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq-how they gained influence and
what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades,
they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National
Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal,
Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the
1990s following the first Persian Gulf War-which still has not ended even
with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more
militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an
absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created
to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war
came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization
helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against
Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never
followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were
motivated more by Clinton's personal and political problems than a belief in
the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by
Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and
think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn't too
long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the
election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld
playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an "American
greatness" imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq
offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This
opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting
the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population,
through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York
Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did
more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might
imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to
attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons
to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell's State
Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire.

Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: "Neoconservatives believe in using
American might to promote American ideals abroad." This attitude is a far
cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances
and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to
war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish
their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this
assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in "A Clean Break: a New
Strategy for Securing the Realm." Although they felt morally justified in
changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was
important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a
threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along
with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which,
in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the
location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this
killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying
go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own
citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows
where we'll go next-Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of
the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power
offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the
Middle East.

It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed
Frances Fukuyama's "end of history" declaration. To them, the debate was
over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long
live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the
West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the
neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been
amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what
Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the
world.


Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this
can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders
understood it.

Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign
policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program
of using our military might to spread their version of American values
throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S.
government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and
goals.

The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say
that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we
need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling
the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede.
There is surely no need to do so.

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day
neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is
important in understanding that today's policies and the subsequent problems
will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a
current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his
book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why
Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries
ago.

Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of
attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly
enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy
meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean
Break was issued.

In Ledeen's most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he
reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He
specifically praises: "Creative destruction…both within our own society and
abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us,
for they do not wish to be undone." Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: "They must
attack us in order to survive, just as we must  destroy them to advance our
historic mission."

If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear
warning, I don't know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each
disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war.
The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for
correctly understanding Machiavelli: "There are no absolute solutions. It
all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be
done and how." This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not
coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: "It depends on what the
definition of the word 'is' is." [[reference to Clinton's deposition about
M. Lewinsky]]

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. "A
prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for
his craft, except war." To Ledeen, this meant: "…the virtue of the warrior
are those of great leaders of any successful organization." Yet it's obvious
that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The
intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There's a
precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for "…peace
increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of
our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders." Peace, he
claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence
and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history
of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even
striving for peace-believing peace is not a benefit to mankind-is a
frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies
it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good
can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual:
central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more
emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of
civilization and general prosperity.

Just as man's condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old
and improved with liberty and free markets, there's no reason to believe a
new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for
conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war
should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an
attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization.

Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't
do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness
around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause
of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly
refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires.
Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli
argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: "In order to
achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into
evil.'

This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired
and challenging…we are rotten," argues Ledeen. "It's true that we can
achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led." In other words, man
is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and
spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from
a powerful authoritarian leader.

What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in
Washington?  The question Ledeen doesn't answer is:  "Why do the political
leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their
monopoly on wisdom?"

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon
argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: "Lying is
central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises,
because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say,
your vulnerability is enormously increased."

What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who cares if a leader
can fool the enemy? Does calling it "strategic deception" make lying morally
justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the
survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal,
even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or
canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national
boundaries-because that's the way it's always been done. Who needs progress
of the human race! He explains:

"Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by
peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries
have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by
struggle, most often bloody struggle."

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight
for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous
borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding
the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral
justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man's disputes. How
  can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a
religious zeal for promoting the state.

This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an
agenda. It's been true throughout history and remains true today, each side
of major conflicts invokes God's approval.

Our side refers to a "crusade;" theirs to a "holy Jihad."

Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this
principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses,
especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters
on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war:
"Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal
damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and
inspires them to risk their lives for the common good."

It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than
eternal salvation of one's soul. Ledeen adds:

"Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act
contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce
the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state
spectacular."

It's of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined
the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring
the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed
their support.

I'd like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in
the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a
"spectacular" state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our
policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element,
this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to
sacrifice their lives for the good of the "spectacular state."

He explains in eerie terms: "Dying for one's country doesn't come naturally.
Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated,
indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are
more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded
forever after for serving their country."

This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin
Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading
infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our
foreign policy.

Neocons-anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and
change regimes in the Middle East-clearly understand the benefit of a
galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without
a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of
preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it
was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all
served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):

…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can
providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and
demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing
dreams of permanent neutrality.

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a "lucky" event.  The Project for a New
American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need
for "a Pearl Harbor event" that would galvanize the American people to
support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of
the world, while strangling any potential "rival."

Recognizing a "need" for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor
as being "lucky" are not identical to support and knowledge of such an
event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be,
was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of
the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11,
Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it
was not implicated in the attacks.

(snip)

There's no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid
growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support
for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are
easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington.
Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress.
Foreign aid and internationalism-in spite of some healthy criticism of the
UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty-are  championed on both
sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade,
yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big
business, big labor and, especially, big money.

(snip)

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war
against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer,
reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war "cowards and
appeasers of tyrants." Because some urge a less militaristic approach to
dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America's best "traditions."
I wonder where he learned early American history! It's obvious that Ledeen
doesn't consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best
traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to
pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they
so painstakingly designed.

(snip)

Mr. Mayhar asked that we post his responses to these communications, as the
attorney in this case has made slanderous statements in an attempt to
discredit ourselves, Sui Juris authority of the people in a court  and Mr
Mayhar over research Mayhar has done in oregon exposing the corrupted court
scheme in place.

We have nothing more to say to Mr Hession and await now for a few months his
answers to any of the factual questions I have asked about supporting the
statements he makes.   There has been NO supporting facts from Mr. Hession
about bringing children home, defending Inherent Rights, excercising
constitutional jurisdiction, systemic changes or prosecution of any officer
who has violated the people he is supposed to be "helping" .... no facts at
all that he has done any of this and we are waiting for these facts to be
produced.  Our record stands and is all over our website
www.avoiceforchildren.com.

However, Mr. Hession not only slandered my husband and myself, he also
libeled Mr William Mayhar, whose article and research we sent out for the
list to use in their own research in their states.   Mr Mayhar is on point,
ahead of most scholars in a clear picture of the corrupted system at this
time and where the points are in the process that are being used to enslave
everyone.

Mr Mayhar has every right to make a rebuttal and defense against such
attacks.

Yes, Leonard, we  HOPE this is the end of the attacks by people without
supporting evidence.  All we do is write what we know to be the truth and do
not deserve to be slandered and libeled for telling the people how to be
empowered against unbelievable agression.  Anyone who is TRULY caring about
the people is open to ALL forms of the people confronting the abuse, NEVER
telling people to do less than all they can to excercise their right to an
agressive defense......

pamela gaston, a voice for children

This first response is from Mr. Hession himself, he characterizes as an
affidavit of TRUTH !!!  Amazing that he is totally aware of all the points
of the impeccable reputable attorney character.....  we know of two judges,
TERRY LEGGERT and DOROTHY BAKER who, on the record,  held up their hand in
court and said "I AM GUILTY OF TREASON - YES - I AM".......  after being
charged in open court for their criminal acts......

This is the kind of rhetoric and nonsense of which their world consists.
The people know that what we are saying is what their experience is also, we
hear from them every day from all over the world, rendered in the corporate
system the attorneys have created for their own profit.    He states at the
end that he quit the BAR ten years ago.  That is what some of the
legislators like to say too, like it makes any difference or that they are
not still in bed with special interests now that they quit the BAR......  It
makes NO difference, it is the system they are working in and not
confronting for anybody.  They KNOW that these are not constituional courts,
we have been told this by judges !!!

We say frequently WATCH WHAT THEY DO NOT WHAT THEY SAY .... we see and hear
100% horsecrap every day in courts from attorneys, see the tears and terror
on the faces of the people are they are stripped clean and left like so much
garbage, in this counterfiet reality we are in, slaves to money priest
masters and managers for the state,  with no rights whatsoever.

Yet he is not telling anyone the truth about his own acts... we keep asking
the questions and no facts have been forthcoming.....the only truth is here
in his affidavit where he is admitting everything we already know is true
and alot more...... facetious?  He says "I AM". these things.....
amazing.....

From: Gregory A. Hession <hession@...>
To: AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:26 AM
Subject: [AFRA_CenCom] Letter from a viperous BAR plant

Dear Pamela:

         Wow, I finally see the truth.  Yes, I am a viper, an illegitimate
representative human, a bar plant, a protector of the system, a member of
the BAR (what is that, a member of Beelzebub's Army of Rottenness?) , an
attorner, a withholder of facts, one who ambuscades, an outlaw, such a
failure that I can't even come up with new lies to protect the system, a
non-supporter of my outlaw acts, a protector of the corporate system, a
spinner, a deceiver, and probably a bad cook, too.

         Whew, I'm glad we have all that straight.  What penance do you
suggest for one so evil as I?  Death would be too kind. Guess I better quit
saving kids from CPS kidnappers and rejoin the BAR association I quit ten
years ago.

Regards,

A viperous BAR plant

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Response from William Mayhar, who can be contacted through a voice for
children addresses.

Dear Mr. Hession,

I agree that Pam doesn't have all the answers - wow, if she only did it
would be wonderful.

I guess in your opinion, the court cases that she did win don't really
count.

Question:

What counter intelligence government agency do you work for?  You probably
won't admit that you are actually working for the government will you?  Most
of the people like you usually don't have the courage to admit the truth.

Let's see you prove your innocense on this one!

Bill -


and second response .......

Mr Hession,

Your opinion is acknowledged.  You have stated that I am totally wrong.  My
research indicates otherwise, however I am willing to accept that you may be
correct and that the Oregon Supreme Court may have lied to me, as well as a
certain Oregon DA who very smugly admitted I was correct.  I'm even willing
to accept that a Lebanon judge that admitted that almost everything that the
State of Oregon does is unlawful - when I used his own statutes to back him
in a corner - was also lying.

Heck, how should I know.  I can only go by whatever facts my very logical
mind manages to come up with.

As as matter of fact, I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about
everything - all I ask of you is to provide crediable evidence for me to
evaluate that proves it.

By the way, some of the things that you said I was wrong about - I took the
information right from the IRS codes.  Hmmm, maybe they are wrong also. Why
don't you tell them them that their manual is wrong about all their actions
being 'en rem' proceedings.

While you are at it, why not contact Boviers, Blacks Law and Websters and
correct them about 'en rem' proceeding not being 'against a thing'
proceedings.

Remember - you are the one that said that I was all wrong.

What magic bullet are you talking about?  I never offered any magic bullet.
I do offer to share with others my experience of what will not work and
why - and how I know it won't work.

I am also willing to share what I have learned that will at this time make
any state supreme court very uptight - even the Oregon criminals.  The key
is that the lower civil servant - such as a pretending judge must be set
up - an easy task in Oregon as they are so corrupt - then my process, when
used properly can be used to go all the way to DC with very simple
questions.

It has taken me years to get this far by trial and error in dealing with
courts in Oregon and Wash.

Oh yeah, I'm just full of crap and all my personal experience in the courts
don't mean a thing according to you.

As Richard Dean Anderson on SG-1 would say - "Oh Yeah, you think you're so
smart!"

I think that's on par with your statment - considering you offered no
supporting evidence.  You act like a lot of so called judges that I have
delt with.

"I said that is the law - facts are irrelevant.  Your guilty."

Then again, that's just my opinon, I could be wrong.

Bill -

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory A. Hession <hession@...>

Dear All:

This is complete Bull-ony, totally wrong and dangerous.  Of course the IRS
are a bunch of illegal robbers.  But if you think that a magic bullet will
vanquish them, you are headed for a nice long stretch of ignominious
solitude in jail.  If anyone goes down this road, it will be a complete
waste of time and resources, while the important things get left
unchallenged.  Please quit misleading people with this nonsense.

Gregory A. Hession



At 11:47 AM 7/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:

Thank You Bill Mayhar for this article:


My research indicates that the courts are operation under secret rules of
slavery.  The court are pretending that everyone has voluntarily agreed to
voluntary slavery for the privilege of being a US citizen.  This places them
under Art 4, Sect 3, cls 2 of the fed constitution.

This is slavery.  People are not aware that slavery was only prohibited to
the republican states and not the fed gov, nor to any of its muni corps,
such as the State of Oregon.

Once one takes on citizenship in the United States, (it appears to be a fed
muni corp created after the civil war via the District of Columbia Organic
Act after the civil war for the re-enslavement of the Blacks) they become a
citizen of a 'thing' created by the Congress.

This gives the individual the legal standing of a 'thing' - hence, all legal
processes in America are now en rem (against a thing - that belongs to the
Congress) and things have only privileges.

US citizens are subject to total taxation without question or
representation.  (The national dept shall not be questioned) See
congressional enactment 14, aka the 14th amendment.  This means that a US
citizen (congressional property) and everything that they think that they
own, can be taken by any muni corp and disposed of any way that the muni
corp officers decide.

All the courts are not en rem courts - refer to the fed tax code - it admits
that all proceedings are en rem.

That is why the courts stand silent on issues of authority and jurisdiction.
They are federal 14th police powers courts collection on the national dept
and exercising Art 4, sect 3, cls 2 slave law authority.

Since the national debt shall not be questioned - US citizens do not have
the power to demand anything from the court.  The court is just a process to
appease the people so that the slaves don't rebel and demand their freedom.

An administrator from the State of Oregon Supreme Court told me last year
that justice is not at issue, only enforcement of the statutes and that the
only natural right left is the freedom to believe in whatever God one
wishes.

For those who would like to work with me to back the courts into a corner
and create a process to allow individuals to remove themselves from slavery,
I would like to work with you and share what I am doing.

Bill Mayhar - Oregon

Bill Mayhar can be contacted through us at this address.

Mayhar has recently filed Quo Warranto into the Oregon Supreme court asking
the questions relevant to  the issues stated above.   This Writ will soon be
on our website www.avoiceforchildren.com .  Thus far the court is a wall of
denial, refusing to answer any question or allow hearing, dismissing these
critical questions without hearing or opinion.  The court is using the same
"rules" to dismiss the petitions and complaints of the people as they
created to enforce the slave scheme as described above.   The people
circumvent this systemic block by coming into the court with courtwatchers,
accessing the record and forcing the default when the agents of the state do
not answer or appear.  Exactly as Mayhar has done in this case, asked the
relevant questions in a Quo Warranto filed into the court, served on the
relevant parties.
pamela gaston


----- Original Message -----
From: avoice@...
To: A Voice For Children ; AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: BAR ATTORNEYS DONT WANT PEOPLE TO EXCERCISE THEIR OWN INHERENT
AUTHORITY [AFRA_CenCom] Sui Juris


This attorney is intentionally misrepresenting what Sui Juris process is in
a court.  AND NOTE THAT HE OFFERS NO SOLUTIONS.  HE HAS NO INTENTION OF
DISSOLVING SYSTEMIC FRAUD.  HE KNOWS FULL WELL THAT IT IS, EVEN ADMITS IT,
YET LEAVES THE PEOPLE HOPELESS WHEN THE ANSWER IS THEIR OWN INHERENT
AUTHORITY.  THE BAR DOES NOT WANT THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

I want to make a point clear.  This attorney has stated before that Sui
Juris is "not the magic bullet"..... WE HAVE NEVER SAID IT WAS !!!!!  That
is so misrepresentive as to be totally innacurate.  This attorney would
leave people totallyl hopeless, just as we see repeated every day, usually
AFTER leading them on and taking all their money first before losing their
cases to the state corporate interest.  IF you read fully what we constantly
write about, there are only TWO things that move the 'court'.....

The "magic bullet " IS -

EXPOSURE AND LIABILITY......

Sui Juris is about getting the people INTO the court, where they ARE the
authority, and they MAKE THE RECORD - WHICH CREATES THE EXPOSURE AND
LIABILITY..... and another part is the courtwatchers watching.....

the ANSWERS are NOT going to come from the same BAR controllers that have
created this corporate system, Justice 2020 Courts of Arbitration and
Mediation....

WHY doesn't this attorney or any others tell the TRUTH and ADMIT to the
people that this is NOT a constitutional system in place right now.....
there are whole websites on the Justice 2020 - it is no secret, but these
attorneys wont go there to the people....they keep acting like there is a
constitutional structure in there, all the acting and spinning, keeping the
people hopeless as this man is doing.....

THERE IS AN ANSWER AND IT IS THE PEOPLE BEING HEARD.  THAT IS ALL THIS IS
ABOUT.  NO ONE MAKES ANY JUDGE DO ANYTHING..... HE NEEDS TO LEARN WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE MAKING THESE KINDS OF ASSUMPTIONS.... ASSUME MEANS
TO PRETEND.....

He is right that judges and attorneys and public officials are tyrants,
without restriction, arrogant, criminal in their agressions on the people.
The FACT is that the VOICE  OF THE PEOPLE IS THE AUTHORITY and the only way
that voice is heard where it matters is IN a public assembly, ON a public
record, IN a sworn forum where the people can set up a default and catch
them in their lies.

This is not an idea, but in fact has shattered the Oregon FRAUD system by
the people going into the courts Sui Juris with their paperwork stating
FACTS that no attorney will state on the Record.

We have watched these processes for so long now that these are not
assumptions about how the BAR judges and attorneys behave, it is ESTABLISHED
far too much to deny.  Sui Juris is simply the peoples voice being heard.

IT IS THE SOLUTION.

What is YOUR solution - to continue to protect the system?  That is the only
voice we hear out there is BAR members telling the people not to listen to
what Sui Juris is all about......  funny that they dont want the people to
be empowered.....

I have asked this particular attorney at least twice to tell me when he has
prosecuted any one who has abused a family in court..... when has he brought
forth remedy for any family?  Restitution?  (NOT fraud settlements with
sealed orders, no admissions of guilt by state criminals, etc.... the normal
attorney "setlement" that protects the criminals to continue in their
systemic fraud.)

ANYONE at this point who is protecting the unconstitutional system corporate
fraud  that is in place is NOT about the People restoring Original
Jurisdiction.
EVERY time there is discrediting attempts against Sui Juris it is ALWAYS a
BAR member.  EVERY TIME it is people who are acting like they are advocates
while in REALITY they are acting always to protect the corporate system
which they want to be part of.....  Sui Juris cuts through all the BS, and
those that want to protect the system are participating in the treason
because it  is SYSTEMIC......

Until the people REESTABLISH the judicial due process we have no remedy.
Without remedy there are no rights.  People such as this attorney would
leave the peple hopeless, thinking they have to hire a state prostitute to
"represent" them, when there is NO AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN HUMAN INHERENT
RIGHTS.

People need to learn all they can and not believe anyone becuase they are
told to think one way or another.  This attorney does not even realize at
all the incredible power of Sui Juris litigants in the courts.  It IS
shattering the systemic Fraud.

Watch his response - he will not admit the Justice 2020 exists, he will not
name one fact when he confronted a corrupt caseworker, prosecutor or judge
to have them prosecuted for criminal abuse against families he is
defending....

We see it ALL the time, without exception.
Time to people in offices of trust and discretion to admit what is really
going on or be seen for what they are, liars and a theives.

We STAND on every word we say, ALL of which is ALREADY SEVEN YEARS OF
UNDISPUTED SUI JURIS COURT RECORDS that has saved our lives and been our
jury confrimed affirmative defense.  When has an attorney done that for
anyone????? We WON our RICO Complaint the BAR judges and attorneys are
GUILTY of racketeering and conspiracy in l998 in Marion County....WHEN has
any attorney done that for anyone ????

There is NOTHING more powerful than what Sui Juris means.

pamela gaston




-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory A. Hession <hession@...>
To: Art_N@... <Art_N@...>; jhwilson@...
<jhwilson@...>; claude11@... <claude11@...>;
AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com <AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:32 AM
Subject: [AFRA_CenCom] Sui Juris


Dear all:

         Pamela states below that:

         "The reason they deny the people is that they only acknowledge
'representatives" in these quasi judicial administrative proceedings . . .
."

         That is NOT true.  They deny the people because they are tyrants,
who care not a whit for the constitution, the rule of law, decency, or
truth.  They are not encumbered by technicalities such as sui juris, never
mind the much more significant realities such as due process or the Bill or
Rights.  They do what they want, not because of the failure of someone to
invoke the arcane doctrine of "in propria persona", but because they are
power mad and committed to an agenda.  Making a judge aware of that minor
technicality does not suddenly make the judge wake from his unconstitutional
swoon, forswear his tyranny, his power and money grubbing ways, his
political agenda, and start doing justice.  That is naive in the extreme,
because it points to the wrong cause and solution to the problem.

         If they won't even rule for justice when shown the plain text of the
law or the constitution, they surely will not comply with basic issues of
justice when confronted with the doctrine of sui juris, a peanut in the land
of judicial elephantine tyranny.

         The problem is so vast and multifaceted that no facile answer like
sui juris would begin to address or solve it.  To give but a few  examples:
1) bad judges are appointed by corrupt politicians who take bribes to
appoint them.  2) There is no accountability for judges.  3) They have
immunity.  4) Most have a statist political agenda.  5) Legislatures won't
rein in their jurisdiction.  6) Interest groups get horrid laws passed.   7)
Administrative agencies function like courts, ruining the system.  Etc.
These are some, and just a few ,of the real problems, and sui juris doesn't
impact them.

         Please, enough already with this sui juris stuff.  It is not a magic
bullet.  Let's work toward dealing with some of the root causes of
injustice, each as they are able.  It is a target rich environment, and we
need to go after the REAL problems, not some flea of a technicality that
does not strike at the heart of their evil schemes.

Gregory A. Hession J.D.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original Response from A Voice For Children:

Sui Juris is the term for real excercising of fully empowered Inherent
Rights, Sovereign in a courtroom.  It is a STATUS, a STANDING in the
American courts..... there is "represented status" there is "pro se status"
and there is "sui juris status" also called "in propria persona status"....
they are all DIFFERENT.

The last trial we were in last year, at the end the DA scratched out "pro
se" on the judgement and wrote in "Sui Juris".  We have claimed this
original jurisdiction since l997 here in Oregon in the Courts, also Ex Rel,
""in relation to" the other aggreived people in the state, acknowledged by
the courts at all levels.   The reason they deny the people is that they
only acknowledge 'representatives" in these quasi judicial administrative
proceedings (their title).  These are NOT courts, and it is up to the Sui
Juris, or In Propria Persona litigant to ESTABLISH Original Jurisdiction by
making the human claim on the Record... the REAL human standing there, NOT
representative humans.

This feeds into the way people do NOT understand the deceptions are all in
the process and they do things like allow representatives to have rights and
fiction corporations to make claims, states being the same corporations.....
no humans there !!!  only money !!!  In Oregon the state writes claims  in
courts  with "money" as the defendants and fiction "state dept." as
palintiff.....

Sui Juris forces all this nonsense to end and the REAL HUMAN has to appear
and answer, as the Bill of Rights DEMANDS.

The difference is like night and day.  And the joke is on you if you dont
know the difference in court.  They manipulate everyone if you dont know
your rights and "pro se"  means literally "represents yourself".....  it is
another "represented /limited jurisdiction/waivered rights" status.... you
CANNOT REPRESENT YOURSELF...... you ARE yourself IF YOU ARE STANDING
CLAIMING INHERENT RIGHTS.

And no attorney can claim Inherent Rights, there is caselaw even that
supports that one.  So with attorneys on both sides in a case, there are NO
human rights going on at all !!!  only a changing group of paid attorners
all working for the system, no law at all.

The CONCEPT of Sui Juris is simple, the people accessing the courts as
sovereigns, not as people think the authority is a judge or attorney.  The
PEOPLE making a RECORD, which then builds their defense and shatters the
lies when the authorities are caught on the record exposed.  IN the
courtroom is where it is all taken from us, there is where we the People
take it back.

It is the most critical information that anyone can learn, the difference.
It is about Inherent Rights vs "legal rights", fully empowered humans and
Familiy Body's  or  slaves in a corporate scheme.

pamela gaston, a voice for children

A GRANDFATHER SPEAKS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE STATE CHILD ABUSE  INDUSTRY

From: wndbear@... <wndbear@...>

PLEASE PASS THIS ONE WORLDWIDE ...... TO ALL FAMILIES, TO ALL WHO CARE.

FORWARDED FYI:  VIA  wndbear
please read.....

I DO NOT AGREE 100% WITH MISTER PERON'S ASSESSMENTS,  BUT WHAT HE SPEAKS OF,
IS ... AT THE VERY LEASE, SHAMEFUL ... AND AT ITS WORSE,  DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR
FAMILIES AND  CHILDREN, AND THEIR FUTURE.

PLEASE READ MY COMENTARY AT THE VERY BOTTOM, AND PLEASE CONSIDER SENDING
THIS OUT TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS, WHO'S CHILDREN MAY BE COME THE NEXT
VICTIM, FOR YOUR OWN CHILRENS, AND FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA AS A WHOLE ....
OUR NATION IS BEING DESTROYED FROM WITHIN,   BY A CANCER WE MUST EXCISE.....
============================================================================
======
They Eat Their Young
Abuse Sniffers and the War on Children
by Jim Peron

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/eat_their_young.htm

Periodically I read books that make me angry. Two such recent reads are No
Crueler Tyranny by Dorothy Rabinowitz  (Wall Street Journal Books, 2003) and
Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine (University of Minnesota Press, 2002).

I'm not angry at the lady authors but I do get angry about the incidents
they recount. Very different books from each other, these books complement
one another quite well.

Rabinowitz covers some of the child abuse hysteria cases that swept the
United States in the 1980s and 1990s. She doesn't dwell on some of the more
well known fraudulent cases like that of the McMartin Day Care case in
Southern California. Instead she concentrates on some of the lesser known
cases and she presents how these cases impacted on the lives of the innocent
people so accused.

The politicization of sexual abuse is, of course, what lead to the problems.
Special interest groups arose who benefited from the hysteria. Gender
feminism with its anti-male ideology was lurking in the dark waiting for
something to clutch onto so it could make political points. And the idea of
the sexual abuse of children was an issue that would be a winner for them.
It had all the ingredients for success.

It was an issue which the media would jump on. Lurid accounts of satanic
ritual abuse, true or not, were guaranteed to sell newspapers. Politicians
love to solve problems and if the problem doesn't actually exist all the
better.

After all, any solution to non-existent problem is bound to look successful.
Authoritarian police officers loved the "crisis".   The Religious Right
could beat their morality drums till the rest of us go deaf from the noise.
Social workers would see vast new powers being handed to them.   Worried
mothers and paranoid fathers would rather be "safe than sorry" and would
applaud all the new moves to protect children.

What was forgotten is that the hysteria impacted real families.
Real children were hurt,   not by the mainly mythological Satanic abusers,
but by the abuse sniffers who would save the children. But to raise this
point and to question the hysteria immediately
makes one suspect.   The angry ideological feminist (is there any other
kind?) screams: "You're downplaying the real pain of abused children."

Of course one isn't. They assume, and often charge, that to question the
hysteria is to claim that no sexual abuse ever takes place. Absurd. To find
individuals falsely accused of murder is not to say that murder never takes
place. To say that the war on drugs is worse than the drugs themselves is
not to say that people should rush out and take illegal drugs.

But in the cases outlined by Rabinowitz it was a very dangerous thing indeed
to question the actions of the abuse sniffers. The child abuse hysteria that
gripped   Wenatchee, Washington   proved this to be true. In the witch hunt
era of Salem, to question the existence of witches lead to the accusation
that the questioner must be a witch as well. In Wenatchee doubts expressed
publicly were quickly followed by accusations and arrests of the
questioners.

Rev. Robert Robertson of the Pentecostal Church of God House of Prayer
learned that first hand.    When the arrests started he was troubled and
started keeping meticulous notes on the cases.   It just didn't seem right
to him.

The police released a long, articulate confession from one woman. Pastor
Robertson knew she was barely literate and couldn't have written the
statement. Finally after accumulating enough facts he made a public
denunciation of the case.   Five days later he and his wife were arrested
and charged with the ritual abuse of children.   Allegedly Robertson, and
his entire congregration, lined up weekly to rape children in the midst of
scheduled church services.

Taken to jail, Rev. Robertson was regularly beaten up.   It seems the police
spread the story to inmates that he was a child abuser.   This is often used
by the prosecutors and the police to intimidate victims,  they call them
suspects—of their actions.   In addition the Robertsons saw social workers
sweep in and take their children from them.

Paul Glassen worked for Child Protective Services.
It was his job to investigate some of the evidence for the cases.   As a
caseworker he reported that one child who had made accusations admitted to
him that she invented the charges. This was a mistake on his part.

For reporting this incident he was arrested and charged by police with
"witness tampering". Child Protective Services fired him.    And within days
the police and social workers were eliciting accusations from numerous
children to the effect that Glassen was one of the abusers.

Glassen packed his wife and young son and moved in with relatives in Canada.
He knew what was coming and figured he'd lose his family if he stayed in
Wenatchee.   He was right.   Before the hysteria ended over 40 people in
this small town were arrested and in excess of 50 children were taken
forcibly from their parents by agents of the state.

In Massachusetts, Violet, Cheryl and Gerald Amirault ran the Fells Acres Day
Care Center.  When accusations were made against them things soon spiralled
out of control. The coalition of special interests that make up the child
abuse industry came out in full force and in no time all three suspects were
in prison in a seemingless hopeless battle to clear their names.

The stories that were told by children subjected to therapy sessions to
"root out" the abuse were horrific, incredible and unbelievable.   The
hallmark of these cases were the fantasies of children running rampant with
the encouragement of angry feminists, power hungry bureaucrats and
authoritarian cops.

Secret tunnels, odd costumes, animal sacrifices and the typical childish
preoccupation with excrement,  urine and various bodily orifices. Incredibly
stupid parents believed that such imaginary tales couldn't possibly come
from their innocent children.

The absurdity of the stories themselves, they said,  proved they were true.
Like Augustine who said that he believed because it was absurd these parents
accepted the claims of the child abuse cult precisely because they were
unbelievable.

For the Amiraults, evidence slowly accumulated proving that a miscarriage of
justice had been inflicted.    But the bureaucrats are always reluctant to
admit that they aren't perfect.   Every step of the way the abuse sniffers
stepped in to try and save the crumbling facade of a case built on lies.

The family ping-ponged back and forth.  One moment they were guilty, then
innocent, then guilty again, then up for parole,  then denied.     A judge
overturned the case and issued a scathing denunciation of the prosecutors
and social workers who manufactured the charges.  Political leverage
resulted in his ruling being overturned again.

The elderly Violet passed away of stomach cancer during this brief period
and died a free (and innocent) woman. The cancer was not diagnosed during
her time in prison in spite of consistent stomach problems.

As the story crumbled more and more prosecutors finally agreed to a
reduction in the sentence for Cheryl.   She was released.   But they only
agreed to freeing her if she agreed not to challenge the
original guilty verdict.  They were determined to let the lie survive
regardless of what pain they inflicted on an innocent woman.

In addition prosecutors were in a panic that Cheryl's release might allow
her to reach the public with the truth about they case.   As a condition for
release they demanded that she be banned from any television interviews.
Other media interviews were allowed. After all, the more intellectual member
of the community were already on her side.

But the child abuse industry feared what would happen if she were allowed to
speak to the wider television-watching public.

The case of Gerald only became harder as a result.   Prosecutors now changed
their claims.  Originally they said all three family members were equally
guilty.   Now they wanted to pretend that Gerald was the main perpetrator
and that he dragged his poor mother and sister in with him. Newspaper
reporters, who originally and typically had been caught up with the abuse
claims, were challenging the story. Too much evidence was accumulating
proving that the entire case was a fiction.

The new governor, Republican Paul Cellucci even publicly said the family was
wrongly convicted.   The Democrat he defeated was Scott Harshbarger who was
the prosecutor in the case.    At last there was something that could be
done for Gerald.   An appeal was filed with the Governor's Advisory Board on
Pardons and Paroles.  Considered one of the toughest such boards in the
country people held out little hope.

The board conducted a careful investigation that lasted almost a full year.
The journal Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly waded into the case—something they
never did.   They denounced the case in an editorial titled "Travesty of
Justice". They said: "The prosecutors here seem unwilling to admit any
possibility that they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes
that never occurred."    The Christian Science Monitor, headquartered in
Boston, called this a "prosecution that should never have been brought."

After nine months the Board finally released a unanimous decision.   They
recommended that Gerald Amirault be pardoned as soon as possible.   And
contrary to tradition they also made statements that the case in question
appeared deeply flawed and that the prisoner was possibly innocent of all
charges.   They called the charges "bizarre" and said it was "clearly a
matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt
exists concerning petitioner's conviction."
This was unheard of.

But in the meantime Governor Cellucci had been appointed as an ambassador
and was replaced by Jane Swift.    Swift was facing a crisis.   Her support
in the polls was dropping rapidly.   She was trailing her opponent by 60
percentage points.   That got her attention.   She denied the pardon.
According to one of her aides she feared a backlash if she kept Amirault in
jail, and she feared a backlash if she let him out.  She just figured the
backlash would be bigger if he were released.  Opinion polls later showed
she guessed wrong and shortly after she announced that she wouldn't run for
the office that she had inherited.

Surely, if there is a hell, then a politician with the morality of a Jane
Swift will occupy the lowest rungson the ladder of eternal damnation.
Swift tried to justify the decision by claiming that Gerald hadn't shown any
attempt at self improvement.   She meant that he refused counselling for
being a sex offender and that he refused to admit his guilt.   He wasn't a
sex offender and had no guilt to admit.

That simple concept couldn't get through her thick skull and she was willing
to sacrifice an innocent man in the vain hope of salvaging a political
career and all its perks for herself.

I can only hope that the likes of Jane Swift have trouble sleeping at night
and that she's tormented by the evil that she did.   However, I doubt she
has the moral character necessary for this to happen.

Rabinowitz's book accounts for numerous other cases.
All show the same patterns of the abuse of power over others.
Social workers demand guilty pleas or threaten their suspects with the
permanent loss of their children.  Little do the victims of the abuse
sniffers realize that they'll lose their children even if they confess in
the hopes of ending the nightmare.

Children are intimidated and coerced into making accusations.   Evidence is
ignored.   Self-appointed experts who are anointed because they bought into
the gender feminist agenda come in and explain away the obvious with absurd
theories that are presented to juries as facts.    And in case after case
innocent people are jailed.  Children are abused by the abuse sniffers
themselves and families are destroyed.

Judith Levine's book Harmful to Minors is very different. She investigates
the ideological assumptions of the abuse sniffers.    She questions the very
foundation of their case:  that children have to be protected from
sexuality.  How she managed to persuade the University of Minnesota to
publish her book I don't know. But Levine is a leftist and a rather strident
one at that. She should be lining up behind her fellow Leftists and joining
the crusade.
Perhaps it's that bias that allowed her to get the book in print.

Her political bias is both her strong point and her major weakness. She
makes absurd remarks that seem to imply that all social problems are rooted
in economic inequality. She spreads the false claim that economic inequality
is rising (as if inequality mattered).

She wants to place the blame for social problems on the lack of good, caring
welfare policies and the interventionist state. She weeps over the fact that
America doesn't have a socialist medical care system, quotes Left-wing
special interest groups to bolster her case and condemns welfare reform.

But that said she does question what has happened in the United States in
the last twenty years. She wants to know how it is that sex suddenly became
something that was considered vile and horrific. And she questions whether
most of the claims made by the antisex coalition of Left-wing feminists and
Right-wing religionists are even true. She thinks not.

She shows how the ideas that were being pushed a couple of decades ago are
now playing themselves out.   For most of human history it was assumed that
children were sexual.   The more religious amongst us didn't even deny this.
In fact they tended to think it proved the innate sinfulness of humankind.
Age of consent was uniformly ten years of age in pre-Progressive Era
America.   Many youths in their early teens were independent and often had
families of their own that they supported—without Levine's beloved welfare
state.

But the modern feminist movement wanted to portray children as sexless
beings victimized by evil men.  Little did they realize that as a result of
their campaign many of the innocent victims of child abuse charges would be
female day care workers.    In a short span it became commonly accepted that
children had no sexuality at all. In fact it was assumed that any display of
sexuality was now proof of abuse.

Where parents had previously been told that they should expect their
children to engage in masturbation or sex play with other children the now
common assumption is that both activities are symptoms of something more
serious.

And one of the results is a spate of horrific cases where young children
themselves are being incarcerated and tagged as sexual offenders and child
molesters.   Prepubescent children are labelled "budding sex offenders".
Playground kisses end up with expulsions  from school for sexual harassment.

In Vermont an eight-year-old girl was listed in school records as being
guilty of sexual harassment because she gave a boy a note saying she wanted
to be his girlfriend.

Kee McFarland, one of the counsellors who manufactured abuse claims in the
McMartin case, wrote a book.     When Children Abuse to present the child as
abuser claim.

What had for generations been curiosity and considered normal, even if
frowned upon, now became something far more sinister.   I'm glad Ms.
McFarland didn't live in my neighborhood when I was growing up or I suspect
that virtually all the children would have ended up in prison or treatment.
And it should be remembered that in many ways this is far worse than the
previous phony crisis McFarland helped manufacture.   We are now talking
about children who are being incarcerated. And because they are receiving
treatment, instead of being punished for a crime, there is no clear cut end
to their incarceration.They undergo "treatment" until their psychiatric
jailers tire of the exercise and free them.

McFarland says that we are uncomfortable about the idea that children are
sex offenders so "we've had to deny their existence and/or minimize their
behaviour until now.   We've called their behaviour 'exploration' or
'curiosity' until they were old enough for us to comfortably call it what it
is: sexual abuse of other children."    McFarland said that 90 percent of
such cases are unreported and she wants that stopped. Those 90 percent have
to be apprehended and treated.

A hysteria that started out to protect children by the  mid 90s had become a
movement to incarcerate them.  Levine reports: "In the mid-1990s, catalogues
of child-abuse literature devoted more and more pages to this young deviant,
much of it... self-published, meaning it did not undergo peer review of a
university press or professional journal. Training tapes and symposia
proliferated and were costly:  in 1996, an audiotape sold for fifty dollars,
today the bill for a two-day workshop is in the several hundreds."

Anyone who has investigated the origins of the child sex abuse industry will
recognize the pattern.  This is precisely what happened in the late 70s and
early 80s.   This is what created the child abuse industry in the  first
place.    MacFarland was paid massive sums of government money to sniff out
abuse. This is not unusual. Almost the entire child abuse industry is funded
via government programs of one sort or another.

But, after McMartin and dozens of other high profile ritual abuse cases, the
cat was out of the bag. The industry was run by ideologues with no concern
for the facts. Very few of the children were actual victims of abuse. Most
of those arrested were innocent.  The evidence that was accumulating didn't
justify the theory.  So the abuse industry turned on the very people they
pretended to be protecting.   They started pointing their accusing fingers
at the children.

According to Levine the first center to "help" children "who abuse" was
started by the rabid McFarland in 1985.   Within a few years one data base
alone listed 50 residential and 394 nonresidential programs "for kids under
twelve with 'sexual behaviour problems' and over 800 programs for teens."

But Levine points out the decision to brand children as sexual deviant was
done without any understanding of what child sexuality is like.   Studies
are forbidden.   Any attempt to actually determine what is the norm would be
roundly condemned by the abuse sniffer coalition.

Levine says: "In spite of a paucity of empirical data, we know that
masturbation is ubiquitous from early on, more noticeably among little boys
than little girls. So is 'playing doctor,' inserting fingers into orifices,
and other such past times.   In the so-called latency years, from about
seven to eleven, children continue to masturbate, touch each other, and have
crushes on their classmates and friends."

More and more children are having their lives ripped apart because they have
sexual feelings that the abuse sniffers deny should exist. To fire their
hysterical crusades  of the past they invented a sexuality-free child.

That made the alleged abuse seem even worse.  But the abuse cases fell
apart. And now the allegedly nonsexual children ended up being very sexual.
The only conclusion they could come up with is that children were now not
victims but victimizers. Like every revolution they eventually turned on the
very people they claimed to represent.

Jim Peron is the owner of Aristotle's Books
in Auckland, New Zealand, and the executive director
of the Institue for Liberal Values, Auckland
(www.liberalvalues.org.nz).
He can be reached at esteem@....

(A note from a voice for children about the following article.  We have
learned now that in l850 the first Dilactic Praxis Instutute was set up.  We
know that in l9l0 the first Eugenics Instututes and Statutes were set in
policy.  Those agendas to "weed out" all the "infirm" and "undesirables"
then went to Germany  as Hitler came to power.  After the war, the US
Universities brought the doctors to america from Germany where they
continued developing the socialist corporate global scheme, and were
provided with the staff and grants to create the technology needed to create
it.  We found out that what we call "Nazi" policies are the same police
state we are now living in here in Oregon, and were not German after all.

We affirm all of the statements of this grandfather, and share his disbelief
that these events could even be happening in what we thought was our
america.  The state knows well that the abuse is so unbelievable that it
discredits the people who even try to tell others what is happening..... but
no more.... the people are learning how to enforce their authority and make
the record now of what is happening..... unlike Nazi Germany WE WILL NOT BE
SILENCED !!!    pamela gaston,  a voice for children)

A COMMENTARY
my own personal position and observations on this nightmare.
I pull no punches, and I'll be damned if I will play the sick and perverted
POLITICALLY CORRECT game ... I will call a "spade" a "spade", and wherever
the chips fall ... so be it.

Can't handle the truth?  Delete me .... and don't say you were not warned
....
============================================================================
======

First let me state, I am a grandpa, who dearly loves the three little girls
that my Wonderful God, and my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,  has placed
into my life.    I am a jealous grandpa, because I want for these little
girls,  the best I can offer them, in the few years that I shall remain on
this planet.

Like most grandparents, and sadly most parents, who was to know that one
day, some man-hating "bulldyke", walking through a small apartment complex
in the township (about 2000 pop.) of
CRIPPLE CREEK, COLORADO, in the notorious and unbelievably corrupt TELLER
COUNTY,  would bang on my daughter's door and demand to speak with her
children.

My daughter, not sure what to do, allowed this DSS Stormtrooper into her
humble small apartment, where the DYKE immediately decided the kids were not
being properly cared for,  one had a dirty diaper, and mom was "overweight
and lazy".    My daughter in her rage, did the right thing!  She threw the
bitch out!

In case you are not aware ..... most DSS-CPS caseworkers, assistants and
group leaders,  (nationwide) are required only to have a HS Diloma or GED
equivelant, and no specialized training...... well over 90% are fairly well
educated, never married, never borne or raised kids of their own, and
surpirizingly,  and many are self-proclaimed lesbians!

Such was the case with the "young  lady" who disrupted
the harmony of our family.

The next day, at the public school system, where children are routinely
sacrificed to the  Alters of Molech, for the sake of making "bonuses" for
these "legalized" CHILD THIEVES, with the assistance of the school's nurse,
the kids were seized by the DSS-CPS, and disappeared!  It was 28 days later
that we finally found out what was happening, what was going on,  and where
the kids had been.

The DSS-CPS Thieves had already planned to terminate my daughter's and her
husband's parental rights, and were planning to adopt out our grandchildren
to strangers!     We were lucky and blessed, because I am a NATIVE AMERICAN
INDIAN, and because of the "Native American Child Welfare Act",  the court
was forced by law, to surrender the kids to family members ... yet not back
to the devastated parents, who's lives have been destroyed by this
perversion of justice.

Let me stop here, and explain something most all parents and grandparents
are not awae of .... something you must understand, and fight back against
NOW, if you are to save your families from destuction.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, through and agency known simply as THE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, run by a cowardly bureaucrat named "Tommy Thompson", a BUSH
appointee, and through two acts passed by a corrupt congress, by "Fritz"
Mondale in 1974, and later enhansed by the crookedest thief ever, HERR
Comrade "Wilhelm" Klinton, gives this agency (which by the way, its
existance violates the US Constitution!) the authority and ability to
provide "cash bonuses" to its agents (lawyers, judges, caseworkers,
assistants contracted foster parents, etc) , who .... seize children from
"abusive" homes, .... who provide "necessary" needs for these "harmed" kids,
who .... provide foster care for these "poor" kids, and of course, a big
super bonuses for the lawyers, and  the case workers and for the judges who
...."ensure" that these kids are adopted out to "loving families".

On average, upward from 10 to 20 Grand  per child seized, in
cash bonuses, becomes available to the agents who do so ..... hence one can
easily see why this nightmare continues unabated, and why they do not want
it exposed to an
angry public !!

PLEASE RE-READ THAT STATEMENT ABOVE
yes it is in my words, and yes, it is conjecture, but IT IS based on a lot
of research done by the offended grandma (my wife Brenda), and many others,
who have made discoveries that must be shared with the American public,
especially those parents and grandparents living in this nightmare, not to
mention the kids that irreparably harmed by this systematic institutional
abuse.

She has made contact with hundreds who have been harmed by this nightmare,
and has learned things that we thought could only be found in places like
Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union.

Who would believe that in America ..... our government (federal, state,
county and municpal) has embraced and practices the horrible rights of the
NAZI LEBENSBORN PROGRAM,  by taking OUR  children from their natural
environs,   their families and raising them in "factories" ... literally
creating monsters in front of our eyes ...   NAZI-ism here in America
....and we never realized that Hitler won the war afterall ...

Just think .... over 10 million people died in World War Two .....all  in
vain.

Go to your search engines and look up that subject, NAZI LEBENSBORN PROGRAM,
then compare it to what is happening to our kids today.    It is
unconscionable, it is wrong and
it is a violation of our laws and the US Constitution ...

The theft of babies from the loving arms of his mama, and then the act of
selling them to adoption lawyers and scum of that nature, is tantamount to
HUMAN SLAVERY, to RACKETEERING,  and to EXTORTION.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE .... in the Constitution, where it says  ..."We the people
...."
The bought and paid for WHORES sitting in the offices of our government are
our servants ... .not the other way around.  The  time for Ameirca to wake
up is here, and the time to act is now.

WE MUST VOTE OUT OF OFFICE EVERY SITTING INDIVIDUAL PRESENTLY IN OFFICE, NO
MATTER WHAT.   STARTING WITH MAYORS, ELECTED CITY LEADERS, COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY COUNTY SHERIFFS

It is your County Commisioners, Sheriffs and government officials at city
and county levels, who perpetrate these sins against our children.   We must
end their careers of theft now, and then arrest them, indict them, find them
guilty and either incarcerate them for life .... or better yet, HANG THEM
for their acts of TREASON agaisnt the American families, in their
jurisdictions.

The impeachment and removal of all township, city and county level judges
must also be done, and they too, must face the wrath of the People, in an
honest court of law. The disbarring and incarceration of lawyers responsible
must also be done.

ITS COME DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE FOLKS .... IT CAN EITHER BE DONE LIKE THAT,
OR EXPECTED TO BE SOMEDAY VERY SOON, BE  "FOUND GUILTY"   FOR PROTECTING
YOUR RIGHTS, OR THE RIGHTS OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ....

THE TYRANNY MUST END..... PERIOD.

Please visit this site and communicate with us .... and if you should desire
to join us, please make it known ASAP.

DSSSuit

Email at "DSSSUIT@ aol.com" or to  (in care of)  "OldTombRaider@MSN,Com"
or me direct.

Please also visit the following site and consider where you alligences
should really be .... its
time to protect our homeland from the real invaders....

Million Gun March Petition
JOIN THE (NATIONAL)
SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION MILITIA
*MUTUAL DEFENSE PACT*





Respectfully yours .......  Steve Mungie
wndbear@...

From: Harsha Sankar <freedom@...>
PBN-VT <uaicvtmb@...> wrote:

Subject:  History of "BAR ASSOCIATIONS" The Crown Temple - Secret Society of
the
Third Way Order [14 Pages]

{THE REAL AMERICAN HISTORY NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS
ON THE 227th ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST 4th Of July 1776}


History of "BAR ASSOCIATIONS"

The Crown Temple

Secret Society of the Third Way Order

by Rule of Mystery Babylon


The Templars of the Crown

The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of
America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the
“Crown,” which is a private foreign power
Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal
Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different “Crown” and
is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing
the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the
“Crown.” From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the
Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.

First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by
the Knights Templar in
two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated
in 1185 and
modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner
and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and
Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also
house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple “Church” is
outside any
Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes
his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or
institution.

All licensed Bar Attorneys - Attorners (see definitions below) – in the
U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the
Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact
that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and
franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of
Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane
behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all
Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the
Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.

The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown
Temple use the Banking
and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent
territory which is
not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called
in the 1800’s, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a
state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the
American people. These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing
crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for
legal and lawful below). They are known collectively as the “Crown.”
Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar
Attornies, not lawyers.

The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led
to believe. Rather,
it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or
Crown Temple. The
Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the
reign of King John,
circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that
time has passed to the
Crown Temple in Chancery.

The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal
government tells us it is.
If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple
through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and
manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S.
Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the
U.S.A. are a
franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown
Temple Church and its
Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers
and attorners from
the independent City of London who violate the law in America by
imposing fraudulent “legal” -
but totally unlawful - contracts on the American people. The banks Rule
the Temple Church
and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim’s
judiciary.

Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights
Templar, this is not a
new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown
Inner Temple
Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons
demanded that he
confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. This City of London
Temple was the
headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and
Rule were first made,
which became known as Code. Remember all these terms, such as Crown,
Temple, Templar,
Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie
together their origins with
the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery)
contracts.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto
whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within
full of dead men's bones, and of all
uncleanness.” -Matthew 23:27

By what authority has the “Crown” usurped the natural sovereignty of the
American people? Is
it acceptable that the U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues
in the U.S.A? How can
it be considered in any manner as being “constitutional” when this same
Supreme Court is
appointed by (not elected) and paid by the Federal U.S. Government? Is
it any wonder the
states and her people have no justice as they dwell upon the land? As
you will soon see, the
land called North America belongs to the Crown Temple.

The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown
Temple from the
independent and sovereign City of London. The private Federal Reserve
System, which issues
fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by
the Crown from
Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United
Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization,
and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even
Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank
of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the
central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the
world.

Definitions You Never Knew:

ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a
tenant to another lord), from
Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn:
to agree to be the tenant of a
new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
of Law ©1996.

ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer
homage and service from
one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants,
upon the alienation of the
estate. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE, n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were
anciently made.], a
shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence
in modern times, a title of
dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given
to the younger sons of noblemen,
to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at
law, justices of the peace,
while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United
States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from
governors down to justices and attorneys. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

RULE, n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain
or make straight.] 1.
Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In
monasteries, corporations
or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its
particular members. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

RULE n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a
regulation.

REGULATION n. 1 [C] a rule, statement about what can be done and what
cannot. 2 [U] the
general condition of controlling any part of human life. -Newbury House
Dictionary ©1999.

CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from
all except those people
who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules of
behavior. 3 [C] a formal group of
principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to
encode. ENCODE v. 1 to
change written material into secret symbols. -Newbury House Dictionary
©1999.

CURTAIN n. [OE. cortin, curtin, fr. OF. cortine, curtine, F. courtine,
LL. cortina, also, small court, small inclosure surrounded by walls,
from cortis court. See Court.] 4. A flag; an ensign; -- in contempt.
[Obs.] Shak. Behind the curtain, in concealment; in secret. -1913
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COURT, n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign
prince. 5. Persons who
compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle
had one court; the temple,
three. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

COURT n. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. -The
Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

TEMPLAR, n. [from the Temple, a house near the Thames, which originally
belonged to the knights Templars. The latter took their denomination
from an apartment of the palace of Baldwin II in Jerusalem, near the
temple.] 1. A student of the law. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

TEMPLE, n. [L. templum.] 1. A public edifice erected in honor of some
deity. Among pagans, a
building erected to some pretended deity, and in which the people
assembled to worship. Originally,
temples were open places, as the Stonehenge in England. 4. In England,
the Temples are two inns of court, thus called because anciently the
dwellings of the knights Templars. They are called the Inner and the
Middle Temple. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CAPITOL, n. 1. The temple of Jupiter in Rome, and a fort or castle, on
the Mons Capitolinus. In this, the Senate of Rome anciently assembled;
and on the same place, is still the city hall or town-house, where the
conservators of the Romans hold their meetings. The same name was given
to the principal temples of the Romans in their colonies.

INN, n. [Hebrew, To dwell or to pitch a tent.] 2. In England, a college
of municipal or common law
professors and students; formerly, the town-house of a nobleman, bishop
or other distinguished
personage, in which he resided when he attended the court. Inns of
court, colleges in which students of law reside and are instructed. The
principal are the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and
Gray's Inn. Inns of chancery, colleges in which young students formerly
began their law studies. These are now occupied chiefly by attorneys,
solicitors, etc.

INNER, a. [from in.] Interior; farther inward than something else, as an
inner chamber; the inner
court of a temple or palace. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CROWN, n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is
a power behind the
crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the
image of a crown; hence, a
denomination of money; as, the English crown. -- Crown land, land
belonging to the crown, that is,
to the sovereign. -- Crown law, the law which governs criminal
prosecutions. -- Crown lawyer, one
employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover,
decorate, or invest with a crown;
hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. -1913 Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary.

COLONY, n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people
transplanted from their
mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit
it, and remaining subject to
the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America
or the Indies; the Spanish
colonies in South America. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances
of a being or thing at any
given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or
peculiar to the being, or they may
have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.]
-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESTATE, n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg,
have nearly the same
signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is
contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1.In a general sense,
fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in
general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a
political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now
use State. ESTATE, v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish.
-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

PATENT, a. [L. patens, from pateo, to open.] 3. Appropriated by letters
patent. 4. Apparent;
conspicuous. PATENT, n. A writing given by the proper authority and duly
authenticated, granting a privilege to some person or persons. By
patent, or letters patent, that is, open letters, the king of Great
Britain grants lands, honors and franchises.

PATENT, v.t. To grant by patent. 1. To secure the exclusive right of a
thing to a person

LAWFUL. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law;
permitted, sanctioned, or
justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or
enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing
in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or
warrant issuing from any court,
under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. – A
Dictionary of Law 1893.

LEGAL. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition,
the administration, the
science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice;
legal blanks, newspaper.
Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the
letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more
appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord
with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are
observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules
prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in
substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of
"equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". - 2 Abbott's Law
Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).

STATUS IN QUO, STATUS QUO. [L., state in which.] The state in which
anything is already.
The phrase is also used retrospectively, as when, on a treaty of place,
matters return to the status
quo ante bellum, or are left in statu quo ante bellum, i.e., the state
(or, in the state) before the
war. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

The Four Inns of Court to the unholy Temple

Globally, all the legalistic scams promoted by the exclusive monopoly of
the Temple Bar and
their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of
Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's
Inn. These Inns/Temples are exclusive and private country clubs;secret
societies of world power in commerce.
They are well established, some having been founded in the early 1200’s.
The Queen and Queen Mother of England are current membersof both the
Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray’s Inn specializes in Taxation
legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln’s Inn received its
name from theThird Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).

Just like all U.S. based franchise Bar Associations,none of the Four
Inns of the Temple
are incorporated - for a definite and purposeful reason: You can’t make
claim against a
non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters
or statutes, and
their so-called constitutions are based solely on custom and
self-regulation. In other
words, they exist as secret societies without a public “front door”
unless you’re a private
member called to their Bar.

While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license to
steal from Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has
legal license to steal from America. This comes about directly via
their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle
Temple through the Crown Temple.

From THE HISTORY OF THE INN, Later Centuries, [p.6], written by the
Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, we can see a direct tie to the
Bar Association franchises and its Crown signatories in America:

“Call to the Bar or keeping terms in one of the four Inns a
pre-requisite to Call at King's Inns until late in the 19th century. In
the 17th and 18th centuries, students came from the
American colonies and from many of the West Indian islands. The Inn's
records would lead one to suppose that for a time there was hardly a
young gentleman in Charleston who had not studied here. Five of the
signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Middle Templars, and
notwithstanding it and its consequences, Americans continued to come
here until the War of 1812”.

All Bar Association licensed Attorneys must keep the terms of their oath
to the Crown Temple in order to be accepted or “called to Bar” at any of
the King’s Inns. Their oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance are made
to the Crown Temple.

It’s a real eye opener to know that the Middle Inn of the Crown Temple
has publicly
acknowledged there were at least five Templar Bar Attornies, under
solemn oath only to the
Crown, who signed what was alleged to be an American Declaration of
Independence. This
simply means that both parties to the Declaration agreement were of the
same origin, the
Crown Temple. In case you don’t understand the importance of this,
there is no international
agreement or treaty that will ever be honored, or will ever have lawful
effect, when the same
party signs as both the first and second parties. It’s merely a
worthless piece of paper with no
lawful authority when both sides to any agreement are actually the
same. In reality, the
American Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an internal
memo of the Crown
Temple made among its private members.

By example, Alexander Hamilton was one of those numerous Crown Templars
who was called to
their Bar. In 1774, he entered King's College in New York City, which
was funded by members
of the London King’s Inns, now named Columbia University. In 1777, he
became a personal
aide and private secretary to George Washington during the American
Revolution.

In May of 1782, Hamilton began studying law in Albany, New York, and
within six months had
completed a three year course of studies, passed his examinations, and
was admitted to the
New York Bar. Of course, the New York Bar Association was/is a
franchise of the Crown
Temple through the Middle Inn. After a year's service in Congress
during the 1782-1783
session, he settled down to legal practice in New York City as Alexander
Hamilton, Esqr. In
February of 1784, he wrote the charter for, and became a founding member
of, the Bank of
New York, the State's first bank.

He secured a place on the New York delegation to the Federal Convention
of 1787 at
Philadelphia. In a five hour speech on June 18th, he stated “an
Executive for life will be an
elective Monarch”. When all his anti-Federalist New York colleagues
withdrew from the
Convention in protest, he alone signed the Constitution for the United
States of America
representing New York State, one of the legal Crown States (Colonies).

One should particularly notice that a lawful state is made up of the
people, but a State is
a legal entity of the Crown - a Crown Colony. This is an example of the
deceptive ways the Crown Temple - Middle Templars - have taken control
of America since the beginning of our
settlements. This is explained in further detail below.

Later, as President Washington’s U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton alone
laid the
foundation of the first Federal U.S. Central Bank, secured credit loans
through Crown
banks in France and the Netherlands, and increased the power of the
Federal
Government over the hoodwinked nation-states of the Union. Hamilton had
never made
a secret of the fact that he admired the government and fiscal policies
of Great Britain.

Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies
comprising New England
were independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They
were and still are
Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who
have no legal
authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple.
A legal State is a
Crown Temple Colony.

Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The
Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn
their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers
and their Middle Templar Attornies Rule America through unlawful
contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity
through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful,
but “legal”, Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts, our
This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate
dso-called “judiciary” in America.eeds to all of North America.

The biggest lie is what the Crown and its agents refer to as “the rule
of law”. In reality, it is not
about law at all, but solely about the Crown Rule of all nations. For
example, just read what
President Bush stated on November 13, 2001, regarding the “rule of law:”

“Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century,
founded on a
commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of
law.”- Joint
Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on
11/13/01, spoken from the White House, Washington D.C.

What happened in 1776?

"Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the
depths of the earth." -
Old Latin maxim and Roman expression.

1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is
the year that the
Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of
Independence was a legal,
not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of
the Crown
Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to
that of the new legal
name called “States” as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the
definitions above to
understand the legal trickery that was done).

The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring
lawful independence
from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession
is the use of the word
“State” to signify a “legal estate of possession.” Had this been a
document of and by the
people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution
would have been
written using the word “states”. By the use of “State,” the
significance of a government of
estate possession was legally established. All of the North American
States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document,
signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as
the Constitution of the United States of America.

All “Constitutional Rights” in America are simply those dictated by the
Crown Temple and
enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their
franchise and corporate
government entity, the federal United States Government. When a “State
Citizen” attempts to
invoke his “constitutional”, natural, or common law “rights” in Chancery
(equity courts), he is
told they don’t apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no
rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown “law”. Only a state
citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of
God’s Law.

The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only
within natural and
common law as is already established by God’s Law. Only a State Citizen
can be a party to an
action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be
recognized in that court
because he doesn’t legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts. In order to
be recognized in
their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a
corporate or legal
entity (a legal fiction).

Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters
within Birth Certificates
issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of God into a
fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders
and Codes (there is no “law” within any Rule or Code). Of course,
Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of
lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted
into a legal
“Person” of fictional “status” (another legal term) in order for their
legal - but completely
unlawful – State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over
him. Chancery Courts are
tribunal courts where the decisions of “justice” are decided by 3
“judges”. This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked
their Rule and Code over all judicial courts.

“It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of
any title to land not
derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by
patent.” -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.

The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and
Charters
(definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the
King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is
now). Since the people were giving the
patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time,
especially concerning
Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe
they were being
granted “independence.” Remember, the Crown Templars represented both
parties to the
1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the
latter 1787 U.S.
Constitution.

To have this “Declaration” recognized by international treaty law, and
in order to establish the
new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar
King George III
agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, “between the Crown
of Great Britain
and the said United States”. The Crown of Great Britain legally was,
then and now, the
Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the
corporate “United States”,
the new Crown Temple States (Colonies). Most important is to know who
the actual signatories
to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation
“Esqr.” following their
names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies
“Officers of the King’s
Courts”, which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is
the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above).

The Crown was represented in signature by “David Hartley, Esqr.”, a
Middle Templar of the
King’s Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by
signature was “John
Adams, Esqr”, “Benjamin Franklin, Esqr.” and “John Jay, Esqr.” The
signatories for the “United States” were also Middle Templars of the
King’s Court through Bar Association
membership. What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that
the Crown Temple
was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and
elaborate scam the
people of North America had pulled on them!

It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in
part,

“to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties
which have been
confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects.”

The Crown Colonies were granted to “persons” and corporations of the
Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American
Colonial land was owned by the Crown. Since 1883, the Crown has been
receiving “restitution” from the United States, their incorporated Crown
franchisee, because the Crown owns the land through paramount and
allodial title as a possessory estate.

Now, here’s a real catch-all in Article 4:

“It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful
impediment to the
recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts
heretofore contracted.”

Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as
the debtors, and the
Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American
people by owning all
debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This
sounds too good to be
true, but these are the facts. The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can’t
begin to describe what had taken place.

So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of
1883? In the
Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North
America,
signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states,

“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the
Congress of the
United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780,
1781, and the present
1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France,
according to the
following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten
Minister of Congress,
given in virtue of his full powers, to wit…”

That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that
Hamilton’s U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in
France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already
familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire.

An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the
United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similarContract
signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and
France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of
Americans.

The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon

Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a
Knight
Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple
Knights who
were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It’s very important
to know how
the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights
Templars, and how the
Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the
Roman
Church.

This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The
Pope on May 15,
1213. This charter was sworn in fealty by England’s King John to Pope
Innocent and the
Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John
stated upon
sealing the same,

“I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.”

Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined
below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:

We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
furnished with our seal… not
induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and
spontaneous will and by the
common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His
holy apostles Peter
and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope
Innocent and to his
Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom
Ireland, with all
their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to
him our
aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman
church… binding
our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to
perform fealty and
show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the
Roman church
without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation
and concession…
from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the
Roman church
shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our
heirs our rights,
liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described
above, we wish to have
perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not
to act counter to
them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt
this, whoever he be,
unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be
shall lose his right to the
kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always
remain firm.

Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due
the Pope
and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King
John broke
the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215.
Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of
the
Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says
so
quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal
monarchs of
England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III
annulled
the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition)
on the entire British
empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire
British
Crown belonged to the Pope.

The following definitions are all taken from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
since the
meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:

FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a
tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands;
loyalty.Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was
bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him against all
his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an
oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their
landlords.The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and
the superior, liege lord.

FEE, n. [In English, is loan]. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in
trust, originated among the
descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in
the south of Europe. See Feud.]
Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or
lord, to be held by the grantee on
condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or
tenant failed to perform the
conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord,
or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement
held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and
feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is
called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in
his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.

FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or
hereditaments held in trust, or on
the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or
tenant has to the lands or other
immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits
thereof hereditarily, rendering
to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure,
&c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior.

By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the
British-English
Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future
possessions, estates, trusts,
charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and
the Roman
Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England
Colonies in
America became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the
“United
States.”

ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and
fealty to the purchaser of an estate.

Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the
Temple Church,
by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new
lord of the
land. Because King John defaulted on the 1213 contract, the new Crown
(the Crown
Temple) had a new lord: The Pope and his Roman Church.

CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as
evidence of a grant,
contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual
sense, it is the instrument of a
grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or
other sovereign power, or from a
private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be
empanelled on a jury, a charter of
pardon, &c. The charters under which most of the colonies in America
were settled, were given by
the king of England, and incorporated certain persons, with powers to
hold the lands granted, to
establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These
were called
charter-governments.

By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms
of his fealty with
Rome and the Pope. What that means is that he lost all rights to the
kingdom, and the royal
English Crown was turned over by default to the Pope and the Roman
Church.

The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his
Knights established it under his Orders. So also the Temple Banks, the
Templar Attorneys, the corporate United States, the corporate British
Commonwealth, the chartered Federal Reserve Bank and Bank of England;
the list is nearly endless. He who controls the gold controls the
world.

The Crown Temple Today

The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is moreso obvious,
yet somewhat
hidden. The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify
their private and
unholy Temple. Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private
Federal Reserve
System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note.

Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is
written in Roman
numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO
SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF
THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention
to the words CAPITOL,CROWN and TEMPLE. 1776 signifies the birth of the
New World Order under the Crown Temple. That’s when their American Crown
Colonies became the chartered government called the United States,
thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Since that date, the United
Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to
every nation as a State
member. Note also that there are 13 layers for the pyramid denoting the
13 chartered
Colony-States and that the eye of Osirus, one of many Templar signs used
the Temple
Illuminati or their Order of the Rose and Order of the Cross.

The Wizard of Oz = the Crown Temple

This is not a mere child’s story written by L. Frank Baum. What symbol
does “Oz” stand for?
Ounces. What is measured in ounces? Gold.What is the yellow brick
road? Bricks or ingot
bars of gold.

The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious ALL CAPS
legal fiction - a
PERSON - the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as
your Christian birth name. Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the
Wizard of Oz? A brain! No legal fiction has a brain because they have
no breath of life! What did he get in place of a brain? A
Certificate. A Birth Certificate for a new legal creation. He was
proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was
granted. Now he becomes the true epitome of the brainless sack of straw
who was given a Certificate in place of a brain of common sense.

What about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) mean
anything to you? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his
work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He
worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul. He’s the
heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily
task as if he was already
dead. He’s the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the
yoke. These days, his task
masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a
hypnotic television until his very
existence no longer has any meaning or value. His masters keep him cold
on the outside and
heartless on the inside in order to control any emotions or heart he may
get a hold of.

The pitiful Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for
himself. Of course, he was
a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he
was. Did you ever
notice how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as if they
have great courage, but
they really have none at all. All roar with no teeth of authority to
back them up. When push
came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when
anyone of any
size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand
Wizard, so he was awarded
a medal of “official” recognition. Now, regardless of how much of a
coward he still was, his
official status made him a bully with officially recognized authority.
He’s just like the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the
Temple Bar.

What about the trip through the field of poppies? Notice how it never
affected the Straw Man
(no brain) or the TIN Man (no heart or soul)? They weren’t real people,
so drugs had no effect
on them. The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so
how could the author have known America was going to be drugged? The
Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries. Just look up
the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had
valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the
rest of the world?

Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was? Toto, the ugly
(or cute, depending on
your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means “in
total, all together; Latin in toto.” Notice how Toto was not scared of
the Great Wizard’s theatrics, yet he was so small in size compared to
the Wizard, no-one seemed to notice him. The smoke, flames and hologram

images were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard
of Oz commanded.
Toto simply went over, looked behind the curtain – the court - (see the
definition for curtain
above), saw it was a scam, and started barking until others paid
attention to him and came to
see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain? Just
an ordinary person
controlling the levers that created the illusions of the Great Wizard’s
power and authority.
When Toto pulled back the curtain to completely expose him, the charade
was over. The veil
hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed.
The Wizard’s game was up. It’s too bad that people don’t realize how
loud a bark from a little dog is. How about your bark? Do you just
remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if
any, your legal master gives you?

Let’s not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What a perfect mythical
creature to symbolize the
Bar Association Attorners who attack and control all the little people
for the Great Crown
Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz - Gold.

What is it going to take to expose the Wizard and tear down the court
veil for what they really
are? Each of us needs only a brain, a heart and soul, and courage.
Then, and most
importantly, we all need to learn how to work together. Only “in toto,”
working together as one
Body of the King of Kings, can we ever be free or have the freedom given
under God’s Law.

Mystery Babylon Revealed

There is no mystery behind the current abomination of Babylon for those
who discern His Truth:

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. -Revelation 17:5

God has reserved His judgment for the great idolatress, Rome, the chief
seat of all idolatry, that
rules over many nations with whom the kings have committed to the
worship of her idols (see
Revelation 17:1-4). The Pope and His purported Church; sitting on the
Temple throne at the
Vatican; ruling the nations of the earth through the Crown Temple of
ungodly deities are the
Rule and Order of Babylon; the Crown of godlessness and the Code of
commerce.

One may call the Rule of the world today by many names: The New World
Order (a Bush family
favourite), the Third Way (spoken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), the
Illuminati, Triad, Triangle,Trinity, Masonry, the United Nations, the
EU, the US, or many dozens of other names.
However, they all point to one origin and one beginning. We have traced
this in history to the Crown Temple, the Temple Church circa 1200. All
world banking, judiciary, and rule of “law” has been under the Rule and
Order of the Crown Temple since that time. Because the Pope
created the Order of the Temple Knights (the Grand Wizards of deception)
and established
their mighty Temple Church in the sovereign City of London, it is the
Pope and his Roman
Capitols who control the world.

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with
gold and
precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of
abominations and
filthiness of her fornication” -Revelation 17:4

This verse appears to be an accurate description of the Pope and His
Bishops for the past
1,700 years. The idolatries of commerce in the world: all the gold and
silver; the iron and soft
metals; the money and coins and riches of the world: All of these are
under the control of the
Crown Temple; the Roman King and his false Church; the throne of
Babylon; attended to by
his Templar Knights, the Wizards of abomination and idolatry.

“The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman [mother of
harlots] sitteth” -
Revelation 17:9

The only mention of “seven mountains” within our present-day Bible is at
Revelation 17:9, so it’s
no wonder this has been a mystery to the current Body of Christ. The
1611 King James (who
was a Crown Templar) Bible is not the entire canon of the early church
(“church” in Latin
ecclesia; in Greek ekklesia). There were other gospels and books that
have been forbidden by
the Papal Throne at Rome since the third century. Greek and Aramaic
copies of the
“unapproved writings” were sought after and destroyed by Rome. This in
itself is no mystery as
history records the existence and destruction of these early church
writings; just as history has
now proven their genuine authenticity with the appearance of the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the
coptic library at Nag Hagmadi in Egypt, among many other recent Greek
language discoveries
within the past 100 years.

The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times:

By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not
found, because
God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that
he pleased God. -
Hebrews 11:5

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also,
saying, "Behold,
the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on
all, to convict all
who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have
committed in an
ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have
spoken against Him."
- Jude 1:14-15

The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians.
The earliest
literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references
to this mysterious
book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book
of Enoch.
Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Origin and
Clement of Alexandria, all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian
(160-230 C.E)
even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church
included the
Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the
first three
centuries after Christ. However, this and many other books became
discredited after
the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal
authorities,
afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.

At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed
interest in the
Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By
the late 1400's,
rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might
still exist.
During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were
later found to
be forgeries.

The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited
to the famous explorer
James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three
Ethiopic copies of the
lost book. In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English
translation. The now famous
R.H. Charles edition was first published by Oxford Press in 1912. In
the following years, several
portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of
cave number four of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were
discovered.

Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon
concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been
added):

[CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that
shall be; a
mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain
of gold, a
mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead.

6 These [6] mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron,
the mountain of
copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of
soft metal, and the
mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as
wax: Before the
fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains,
and they shall
become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days
that none shall be
saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There
shall be no iron for
war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of
no service, tin shall
be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be
desired. 9 All these things
shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the
Elect One shall
appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.’

[CHAPTER 24] 3 The seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it
excelled them in
height, resembling the seat of a throne; and fragrant trees encircled
the throne.

[CHAPTER 25] 3 And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou
hast seen,
whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy
Great One, the Lord
of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit
the earth with
goodness. 4 As for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch
it until the great
judgement when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to
its consummation
for ever. 5 It shall then be given to the righteous and Holy. Its fruit
shall be for food to the
elect: It shall be transplanted to the Holy place, to the temple of the
Lord, the Eternal
King. 6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the Holy
place shall they
enter; its fragrance shall be in their bones and they shall live a long
life on earth, such as
thy fathers lived: In their days shall no sorrow, or plague, or torment,
or calamity touch
them.’

The present wealth and power of all the world’s gold, silver, tin,
bronze, pearls,
diamonds, gemstones, iron, and copper belonging the Babylon whore, and
held in the
treasuries of her Crown Templar banks and deep stony vaults, will not be
able to save
them at the time of the Lord’s judgment.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the
kingdom of heaven
against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them
that are entering to
go in. – Matthew 23:13

Where do we go from here?

Now that their false Temple has been exposed, how does this apply to the
Kingdom of Heaven?
To reach the end, you must know the beginning. For everything ordained
of God, there is an
imitation ordained of evil that looks like the genuine thing. There is
the knowledge of good and
the knowledge of evil. The problem is, most believe they have the
knowledge of God when
what they really have is knowledge of world deceptions operating as
gods. Where there is the
true Tabernacle or Temple of God, there are also the false Temples of
unholy gods. The only
way to discern and begin to understand the Kingdom of Heaven is to seek
the Knowledge that
comes only from God, not the knowledge of men who take their legal claim
as earthly rulers and
gods.

The false Crown Temple and its Grand Wizard Knights have led the world
to believe that they
are of the Lord God and hold the knowledge and keys to His Kingdom.
What they hold within
their Temples are the opposite. They claim to be the “Holy Church,” but
which holy church?
The real one or the false one? Are the Pope and his Roman Church the
Temple of God, or is
this the unholy Temple of Babylon sitting upon the seven mountains?

They use the same words, but alter them to show the true meaning they
have applied: The
State is not a state; a Certificate is not a certification. The Roman
Church is not the church
(ekklesia). There is the Crown of the Lord; and a Crown of that which
is not of the Lord. There
is the mark and seal of the Lord God; and there are the Marks and Seals
of the false gods. All
imitations appear to be the genuine article, but they are fakes. Those
who are truly seeking the
genuine Kingdom of God must allow the Lord to show them the discernment
between the
genuine and the imitation. Without this discernment by the Holy Spirit,
all will remain fooled by
the illusions of false deity emanating from the unholy spirits of the
Wizards.

Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom
of God is
within you. - Luke 17:21

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom
is in the
sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you,
'It is in the
sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the FATHER'S kingdom is
within
you and it is outside you. – Gospel of Thomas 3

Don’t you know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
God lives
in you? – 1 Corinthians 3:16

Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from
you
will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be
revealed.
[And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."] – Gospel of
Thomas 5

From: truelaw2001 <lawgiver@...
Once this is digested, there should never be another question as to the
effect of the 14th Amendment...

Please go  to: http://www.avoiceforchildren.com/specials/wangrud.html
for additional research by Robert Wangrud on these issues.
pamela gaston, a voice for children


FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:

by Behold Newsletter


The validity, or should I say invalidity, of the Civil War Amendments is
very important to reinstating the unalienable rights of free white Citizens
in the United States of America. At every juncture where the government of
the United States of America or the governments of the several States
attempt to deprive free white Citizens of their unalienable rights the Civil
War Amendments ultimately are claimed to be the authority for such
deprivations of rights.

To determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment is fact or fiction, I will
proceed to dissect each section of the Fourteenth Amendment, sentence by
sentence.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,..."

Notice, there is no relation to race and there is no definition of person,
other than the "p" in person is not capitalized, indicating the word would
not mean a Natural Person, but a juristic person or artificial person. As
the courts have said, the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment apply to corporations which are juristic
(artificial) persons.

Compare this with Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution for the
united States of America:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen,..."

Notice the "N" in no, the "P" in Person and the "C" in Citizen. All of the
capitalization is on the object to be distinguished as to who is a Natural
Person. This is further clarified in Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R. 326:

"Free negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere, considered and treated
as a degraded race of people; in so much so, that, under the constitution
and laws of the United States, they can not become citizens of the United
States." Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R. 334.

In light of this, a person would be considered as a "United States Citizen",
but not a "citizen of the United States"; as the Constitution was framed to
incorporate the common law, in opposition to international law. (1) common
law: one race governs; (2) international law: all races govern.

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a
citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is
no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a
citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and
inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the
expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its
various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of
the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.

[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

The capitalization of the words "Person" and "Citizen" could mean only one
thing, the denoting of only those of one race in compliance with the common
law.

"The American colonies brought with them the common, and not the civil law;
and each state at the revolution, adopted either more or less of it, and not
one of them exploded the principle, that place of birth conferred
citizenship." Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R. 3738.

Under the commonlaw, and under American Constitutions, Citizenship was
dependent upon right of inheritance which can only be passed by lineage
(race). This is in accord with the Preamble (Constitution for the United
States of America), which states that the constitution was adopted for the
protection of "We The People" and "their posterity", posterity being a
racial term.

The "p" in persons of the Fourteenth Amendment is not referring to those
referred to in Article 4, Section 2, Constitution for the United States of
America.

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."

Notice the word "subject." Those that were not of the white race, when the
Fourteenth Amendment as proposed, were natural born subjects.

"Blacks, whether born or in bondage, if born under the jurisdiction and
allegiance of the United States, are natives, and not aliens. They are what
the common law terms naturalborn subjects...The better opinion, I should
think, was, that negroes or other slaves, born within and under the
allegiance of the United States, are naturalborn subjects, but not citizens.
Citizens, under our constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants, born
within the United States, or naturalized under the law of congress..."
Commentaries of American Law, James Kent, 7th Ed., Vol. II, at 27578.

Thus, we find the meaning and application of the terms "subject to the
jurisdiction."

A "citizen of the United States" (that is a commonlaw Citizen in one of the
several States), at the adoption of the Constitution for the united States
of America, was considered "within" the jurisdiction of the United States.
Citizens were never "subject" to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Instead, the United States was subject to the jurisdiction of the Citizen,
that is, under the common law. See the Tenth Article in Amendment,
Constitution for the United States of America.

According to the common law principle, upon which our Constitution was
founded, only the race (family) of people forming the sovereignty to adopt
the Constitution (We the People) are considered Citizens; all others born
inside the country and owing allegiance to "We the People" are natural born
subjects. Under principles of international law, that is, interracial law
(See definition in Webster’s Dictionary, 1828), these subjects, who, by
special privilege, are licensed to become something or do something normally
illegal under the commonlaw, are said to be citizens and persons.

"But in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that
there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States
and their Government, and interfering with their relation to each other. The
powers of the government, and the rights of the citizens under it, are
positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the
United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden
it to exercise others." Dred Scott v. Sanford, (18561857) 19 How. (60 U.S.)
393, 452, 15 L.Ed. 691.

It is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment could not be referring to the
Citizens known as those of the white race, but must be referring to those
artificial citizens of the nonwhite races.

"...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside..." Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

This sentence is interesting, as it not only declares that these "persons"
(small p) are "citizens" (small c) of the United States, but also of the
State they choose to reside in.

"No white person born within the limits of the United States, * * * or born
without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes
the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal
Constitution." Van Valkenburg v. Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43, 47.

"Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no
citizens of the United States, but only some one of them. Congress had the
power ‘to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,’ but not the power to
make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state. But the states generally
provided that such persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become
citizens thereof, and then the courts held, ab convenienti, rather than
otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United States."
Sharon v. Hill, (1885) 26 F 337, 343.

Notice the words "some one of them." This refers to citizenship of "some
one" of the States. The national government had no power to make citizens of
its own and force them upon the States. The States could make anyone they
chose to be a citizen of their State, but only those of the white race could
be recognized as national citizens under the Preamble to the Constitution
for the united States of America, and be treated as Citizens in any State
they entered.

Thus, only white State citizens held the privileges and immunities known to
Article 4, Section 2, among the several States, and no State could confer
that constitutional protection on any other race. In consequence thereof
they also could not authorize a nonwhite to be an officer of the United
States government. These elements were what was referred to as national
citizenship, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, to avoid one State, or the
States collectively, at the national level, from interfering in another
State’s sovereignty, or the sovereignty "We the People".

The Fourteenth Amendment attempts to reverse this natural commonlaw order of
things by making State citizenship dependent upon national citizenship.

"*** By the original constitution, citizenship in the United States was a
consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [Am 14, sec 1] this
order of things is reversed. Citizenship in the United States is defined; it
is made independent of citizenship in a state, and citizenship in a state is
a result of citizenship in the United States. So that a person born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is,
without reference to state constitutions or laws, entitled to all privileges
and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States to citizens
thereof." U.S. v. Hall, (1871) 26 Fed. Case 79, 81.

"Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no
citizens of the United States, but only some one of them. Congress had the
power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," but not the power to
make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state. But the states generally
provided that such persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become
citizens thereof, and then the courts held, ab convenienti, rather than
otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United States."
Sharon v. Hill, (1885) 26 F 337, 343.

Notice the words "ab convenienti," which means after the event. This means
after the constitutional convention. And the words "ipso facto," which
interprets as after the sovereignty was established, composed only of
members of the white race (family).

The choice of words here is interesting, as they did not use the words "nunc
pro tunc," which means to do what should have been done in the beginning. In
other words, they are not saying they made a mistake by not including other
races when the Constitution was framed. They are only claiming to changed
the order of things, regardless of the correctness of the original
circumstance.

This section of the Fourteenth Amendment attempts to totally dissolves the
State’s (people of the State) right to declare its own sovereign body, it is
in violation of State sovereignty, and completely violates Article 4,
Sections 2 and 4, and the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

"A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of
the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to
be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation
therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered
up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Constitution for the united States of America, Article 4, Section 2.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ninth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America. Ninth
Article in Amendment, Constitution for the United States of America.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people." Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution for the
united States of America." Tenth Article in Amendment, Constitution for the
United States of America.

To understand that not only Article 4, but all other Articles, 1 through 7,
were written only for the government of and for the white race, thereby
barring those not of the white race from coming under their protection, you
are referred to the case of Crandall v. Connecticut, (1834) 10 Conn 340.

"The first Congress after the constitution was adopted, was composed of many
of those distinguished patriots, who framed the constitution, and from that
circumstance would be supposed to know what its spirit was. Some of the
earliest work they performed for the country, was to establish by law a
uniform rule of naturalization. The first law was by Congress in 1790, and
in its precise and technical language is used: ‘Any alien, being a free
white person, may become a citizen, by complying with the requirements
hereinafter named.’ In the year 1795, a further regulation was made by law,
when the same language was used: ‘Any free white person may become a
citizen,’ &c. In 179818021813, and 1824, similar laws were passed, on the
same subject, and in each of those laws, the same technical language is
used. These laws were carrying into effect the constitution itself; and if
the constitution in any part of it embraced coloured persons as citizens,
then Congress mistook its duty, and
   early departed from its provisions. Congress have also marked this
distinction of colour in the postoffice laws ‘No person of colour can be
engaged in the postoffice, or in the transportation of mail.’ This is a
right open to all but persons of colour." Crandall v. Connecticut, (1834) 10
Conn 358.

"To my mind, it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rule of
construction, to say, that slaves, free blacks, or Indians, were citizens,
within the meaning of that term, as used in the constitution. God forbid
that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by
my duty, to say, they are not citizens. I have thus shown you that this law
is not contrary to the 2d section of the 4th art. of the constitution of the
United States; for that embraces only citizens." Ibid, at 347.

Note the word "citizen" as it used in Crandall. For the definition of the
word "citizen," I refer you to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., (1859):

"CITIZEN, persons. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the
descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled
to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of
the United States, each State had the right to make citizens of such persons
as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to
become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that
no one is a citizen who is not white." Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed.
(1859), Title "Citizen," p. 231.

"CITIZEN, persons. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native
citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or
appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except
the office of president and vicepresident. The constitution provides, that
‘the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several states.’ " Ibid, at p. 231.

This leaves no doubt who, under the organic law of this nation, are solely
defined as Citizens (Persons), or what race is the sovereign body. No one
else is included. The Fourteenth Amendment is an attempt to unseat the
organic law and I would question any and all government officials who would
condone this type of deception.

Notice in your reprints of the Constitution for the united States of
America, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number
of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Constitution for the united States of America, Article 1, Section 2, Clause
3.

Upon checking the Constitution for the Confederate States of America, the
people of the Confederacy, who knew and understood the organic law of this
nation, reworded the Preamble and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, as
follows:

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal
government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity—invoking the favor and
guidance of Almighty God—do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
Confederate States of America." Preamble to the Constitution for the
Confederate States of America.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined, by adding to the whole number
of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, threefifths of all slaves." Constitution for
the Confederate States of America, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

Notice "We, the people" and "to ourselves and our posterity" were preserved.
Also, notice the substitution of the word "Persons" for that of the word
"slaves."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;..." Fourteenth Amendment,
Section 1.

This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, seems to make all
State Constitutions which set their sovereign body as the white race only,
such as Oregon’s Constitution, null and void.

"In all elections not otherwise provided for by this constitution, every
white male citizen of the United States,..." Oregon Constitution, (1859)
Article 2, Section 2.

and others, such as:

"The electors or members of the general assembly shall be free white male
citizens of the State,..." Georgia Constitution, (1865) Article 5, Section
1.

"Every free white man at the age of twentyone years being a native or
naturalized citizen of the United States,..." North Carolina Constitution,
(1856) Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2.

"Every white male citizen of the commonwealth, resident therein, aged
twentyone years and upwards, being qualified to exercise the right of
suffrage..." Virginia Constitution, (1830) Article 3, Section 14.

"That every white male citizen of this State, above twentyone years of age,
and no other, having resided twelve months within the State, and six months
in the county,..." Maryland Constitution, (1810) Article 14.

"All elections of governor, senators, and representatives shall be by
ballot. And in such elections every white free man of the age of twentyone
years,..." Delaware Constitution, (1792) Article 4, Section 1. See Neal v.
Delaware, (1880) 103 US 370, 26 L.Ed. 567, as to nullification of State
Constitutions under Article Six. of the Constitution for the United States.

All of these provisions of the Constitutions for the States seem to now be
null and void if the Fourteenth Amendment is considered as a valid amendment
to the Constitution for the united States of America, which it certainly is
not. No State legislature could change the governing class which put the
legislature into being and which class was set in their own State
constitution.

Here we must also note the difference between the Fourteenth Amendment’s
"privileges and immunities" clause and the "privileges and immunities"
clause of Article 4, Section 2. Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 US 581, 59293, 20
S.Ct. 448, 44 L.Ed. 445.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws." Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

Notice how close the wording of this sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is
to the wording of the Fifth Article in Amendment:

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation." Fifth Article in Amendment, Constitution for the united
States of America.

Notice the Fourteenth Amendment deviates from the Fifth Article in Amendment
on the issue of compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "equal
protection," where the Fifth Article in Amendment says, "nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The problem, as I see it, in this change of wording, is to give martial law
properties to the Fifth Article in Amendment, thereby converting the
commonlaw remedial effect of the Fifth Article in Amendment, to a martial
law remedy. This could be why the courts use the word "purview" when
referencing the Articles in Amendment One through Eight in relation to the
Fourteenth Amendment.

"Purview. Enacting part of a statute, in contradistinction to the preamble.
The part of a statute commencing with the words ‘Be it enacted,’ and
continuing as far as the repealing clause; and hence, the design,
contemplation, purpose, or scope of the act." Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
Ed. (1979).

As I see it, when the judges speak of any commonlaw remedy, principle or
maxim as being within "purview" of the Fourteenth Amendment they are
converting a commonlaw remedy, principle or maxim, to martial law remedy,
principle or maxim of law. In such cases the commonlaw remedy, principle or
maxim is eliminated and, of course, the unalienable rights of the Citizen
are also eliminated, in favor of martial rule.

This conversion of the common law to properties of martial law nature is
obvious. The Fourteenth Amendment with military force to enforce it, allows
all races to govern, a maxim which violates the commonlaw with the power
(force) of martial law.

According to these principles, we must take another look at this portion of
the 14th Amendment. What is "due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Amazingly enough, "due process" is completely defined within the amendment
by the integral words that follow those very terms, "equal protection of the
laws."

Nothing more than "equal protection of the law" is required to satisfy the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, equal tyranny and
deprivation of commonlaw rights to all meets the equal protection principle.
So, what protection is given? Answer: As much as the national government
wishes to give, and no more. Congress protection can be enlarged and
contracted as much as Congress and administrative agencies wish, provided,
only that these changes affect all equally. If everyone is chained to a post
for their own protection then they have "equal protection of the law," under
Martial Rule.

To see the clear and inherent weakness of the Due Process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, we look below to find that the commonlaw principles
clearly known to the Bill of Rights do not apply to the Fourteenth Amendment
and Due Process.

[9, 10] "The privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth Amendment
protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of
Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens...Instead this
provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the
federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state
citizenship..." Jones v. Temmer (Aug. 1993) 829 F. Supp. 1226.

CARDOZO LAW REVIEW

SPRING 1979

BENJAMIN NATHAN CARDOZO COMMEMORATIVE ISSUE

TITLED "ORDERED LIBERTY"

by John T. Noonan Jr, professor of LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

"...Cardozo read the decisions he cited expansively, making it clear that in
his view the corresponding provision of the Bill of Rights were no part of
fourteenth amendment due process.’ Here the law review cites Twining v. New
Jersey:

"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh
Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms
guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have
been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by
the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the
guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained
in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect
of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth
Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where
the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon
information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment,
made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed
by the Sixth Amendment, were
not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those
words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment... the decision rested upon the
ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the
States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight
Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause
‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ ...We
conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory selfincrimination is
not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by the States...

"...it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first
eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against
State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of
law... If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the
first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are
included in the conception of due process of law." Twining v. New Jersey,
211 U.S. 78, 9899, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97.

The Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the
State Constitutions are bound by the principals of the CommonLaw. Courts
were bound to include these CommonLaw

Principals in all of their desisions:

"No position can be more clear than that all the federal judges are bound by
the solemn obligation of religion to regulate their decisions agreeably to
the Constitution of the United States, and that it is the standard of their
determination in all cases that come before them." U.S. v. Callender, 25
Fed. Cas. No. 14,709.

But the Due Process of the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights
therefore the due Process of the 14th Amendment is not bound by the
principals of the CommonLaw.

Therefore, any reference to Amendments One through Eight, when applied to
the State, or through purview of the Fourteenth Amendment in any way,
replaces the common law thereof with Martial Rule. This is pure theft of our
God given common law birthright. The first section of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s purpose is to:

1. Convert commonlaw citizens to statutory citizens and statutory persons
under martial rule; and,

2. Convert commonlaw remedies, principles and maxims in Articles One through
Ten in Amendment to martial law remedies, principles and maxims through the
Fourteenth Amendment; and,

3. Convert commonlaw rights to property to martial law confiscation of
property, in which a private citizen is not capable of protecting his
property under the commonlaw; and,

4. Completely remove the commonlaw jurisdiction from the original people and
their posterity and convert them to statutory persons who can be brought
within purview of the Fourteenth Amendment under national international
martial rule; and,

5. Completely destroy the restrictions on those not of the white race to
enter our nation and dislodge the people mention in the Preamble as the
governing body of this white nation; and,

6. Completely destroy the ability of the said people to govern by allowing
those not of our race to hold elected office, both State and National.


All this is done with the intention of breaking down State sovereignty by an
increased power of the national side of the United States government with a
corresponding loss of power for State sovereignty on the federal side of the
United States. This leaves the existence of the United States government
less dependent, or not dependent at all, upon the existence of the Several
States.

The Fourteenth Amendment set the stage for the destruction of white rule
under Christian doctrine in the United States of America.

Ultimately, they will not succeed, as God has designated this land for the
regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel to become a mighty nation again,
and so it will be as God has proclaimed.

The nation is awakening slow but sure, and the day is not far off when this
nation will arise and cast out from their midst all of the legislation that
is in contradistinction to her organic God given laws.

The next section of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

"Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons
in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at
any election for the choice of electors for President and Vicepresident of
the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial
officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to
any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twentyone years of age, and
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis for representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twentyone years of
age in such State." Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2.

The purpose of the initial sentence of section two is clear by its own
terms, Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons
in each State,..." The intention is to give those persons, previously known
as chattels, a whole character and to give that character representation as
a citizen; accordingly, allowing the States to claim those persons for
purposes of representation in the United States government. Elk v. Wilkins,
(1884) 112 US 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643.

What does the original Constitution say on the subject?

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number
of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Article 1,
Section 2, Clause 3, Constitution for the united States of America.

Under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, we can see that the Framers understood
that they would not allow the direct taxation of property in the several
States, by the United States, by excluding those persons held in servitude
as property from apportionment for direct taxes. The only exception made was
that of counting those persons at threefifths of their actual enumeration
and adding that to the whole number of free persons.

At the time of adoption of the Constitution for the united States of
America, the southern States feared that they would be powerless in the new
government due to low population of free persons in those States. A
compromise was struck which allowed additional representation for the
populace held as slaves, with a corresponding increase in taxation for the
additional representation. This carried two benefits with the new
government; (1) more revenue would be generated by the United States from
these States; and, (2) these States would be more likely to ratify the
Constitution, having more equal authority in the central government. But
even here, representation and direct taxes were not considered on the same
level. See, 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 195 (1906).

The first sentence of section two of the Fourteenth Amendment is wholly in
conflict with, and in contradiction to, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, as
well as the Preamble. The only reason these persons (Slaves) were even given
a threefifths character in the United States Census was for the purpose of
taxation, which, incidentally, prevented the slave States from suffering a
lack of sufficient representation in the United States House of
Representatives. By no means was this threefifths character to imply any
direct representation of the persons to whom it related. See 8 Fed. Stat.
Anno. 107 (1906).

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, if any State refuses to give this class
suffrage in State elections, by the terms of section two (14th Am.), a
disability is imposed. When this disability is imposed the State subjected
to the disability loses the threefifths representation it had based upon the
number of such "persons" and for that reason is repugnant to the organic
law.

Rather than returning a State to its original standing or representation
under Article 1 by counting nonwhites as threefifths for purposes of
taxation and incidental representation, the uncooperative State is forced
into the very condition the Framers of the Constitution intended to prevent
by the compromise struck at the Constitutional Convention. And since section
two of the Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention of taxation, it is
presumable that the State would still be taxed according to at least
threefifths apportionment for the number of those persons inhabiting the
State, an unequal taxation never intended. See The Federalist, No. 34.

Moreover, without the threefifths disability place upon nonwhites, the
people mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution for the united States
of America, or, rather, their posterity, no longer can maintain their
superior character over their own governmental affairs as the founders and
sovereignty of the government. This amounts to no less than allowance of a
foreign invasion into the several States of the Union, sanctioned by
Congressional (State and Federal) legislation against the people of the
States in violation of their respective sovereignties.

One thing that must be noted: although this disability would be imposed upon
the States that were uncooperative, they could still deny suffrage to the
Subjects of the United States.

In section two of the Fourteenth Amendment, Indians not taxed were still
excluded as they are in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The reason "Indians
not Taxed" (taken) were still excluded is because of their allegiance to,
and membership in, a separate racial sovereignty, that is, the Indian
nations. See, 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 626.

Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 US 94, 102, later determined that holding Indians
outside the consideration for representation was wholly inconsistent with
destruction of racial distinction proposed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It
is speculated by this commentator that this decision was made, because, to
decide otherwise would reveal the racial sovereignty principles of the
Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and the Preamble. The purpose
of the Fourteenth Amendment was to destroy the commonlaw ideal that each
race (enlarged family) constituted a separate sovereignty in their own
governments. It should be noted that this principle (destruction of racial
recognition) has now been extended to all races including artificial
juristic persons (corporations etc.) even though the Fourteenth Amendment
initially was put into existence on the proposition that it was only
intended to benefit the African race.

"The Fourteenth Amendment is to be liberally construed to carry out the
purpose of its framers, but it is not to be restricted in its application
because designed originally to rectify an existing wrong. The amendment was
adopted soon after the close of the civil war, and undoubtedly had its
origin in a purpose to secure the newlymade citizens in the full enjoyment
of their freedom. But it is in no respect limited in its operation to them.
It is universal in its application, extending its protective force over all
men, of every race and color, within the jurisdiction of the States
throughout the broad domain of the Republic." 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 256; See
also, authorities cited therein.

It is no wonder that this amendment has been held to apply to artificial
(juristic) citizens , since its purpose was to artificially, by operation or
fiction of law to, confer citizenship on classes never recognized as
Citizens under commonlaw principles that are based upon the natural law of
our Heavenly Father. See the Seventh Commandment, Deuteronomy 5:18
(adultery), Luke 18:20 (adultery)

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

"Sec. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the
United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by vote of
twothirds of each House, remove such disability." Fourteenth Amendment,
Section 3.

This provision, at first glance, was obviously intended to punish the active
southern participants in the Civil War. But this section, like the rest of
the Fourteenth Amendment later proved to deprive the rights of Citizens in
the socalled northern States as well. For instance, under this section
Congress enacted legislation requiring Citizens to take an oath of
allegiance before being allowed to vote (thus interfering with their right
of suffrage and exercise of sovereignty) and before obtaining judgments in
the courts of the United States (thus interfering with the Citizens right to
obtain remedy).

The oath spoken of was created during the civil war and continued thereafter
under the martial law of this section of the Fourteenth amendment. It was
created with the intent to circumvent any exercise of State sovereignty,
either by conventions of the people of the State or by acts of their
legislature which could interfere with the unauthorized superiority
exercised by the United States government through the force of martial law.

"...it shall be the duty of the heads of the several departments to cause to
be administered to each and every officer, clerk, or employe, now in their
respective departments, or in any way connected therewith, or who shall
hereafter in any way become connected therewith, to following oath, viz.: "I
do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support,
protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States
against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true
faith, allegiance, and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution, or
law of any State Convention or Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding;
and, further, that I do this with a full determination, pledge, and purpose,
without any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever; and, further, that I
will well and faithfully perform all the duties which may be required of me
by law. So help me God." And that each and every such civil officer and
employe, in the dep
artments aforesaid, or in any way connected therewith, in the service or
employment of the United States, who shall refuse to take the oath or
affirmation herein provided, shall be immediately dismissed and discharged
from such service or employment." An Act requiring an Oath of Allegiance,
and to support the Constitution of the United States, to be administered to
certain Persons in the Civil Service of the United States. Approved August
6, 1861, Ch. 64, Section 1, 12 Stat. 326.

Also see the oath prescribed for West Point cadets in An Act providing for
the better Organization of the Military Establishment. Approved August 3,
1861, Ch. 42, Section 8, 12 Stat. 287, 288.

The Oath of Allegiance was also used in many other relations. To obtain a
judgment in the Courts of the United States and to raise claims in its
departments and bureaus, for instance, Congress enacted:

"...the commanders of all American vessels sailing from ports in the United
States to foreign ports, during the continuance of the present rebellion,
and all persons prosecuting claims either as attorney or on his own account,
before any of the departments or bureaus of the United States, shall be
require to take the oath of allegiance, and to support the Constitution of
the United States (or affirm, as the case may be,) as required of persons in
the civil service of the United States, by the provisions of the act of
Congress approved August Sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty one...." An Act
requiring the Commanders of American Vessels sailing to foreign ports and
Persons prosecuting Claims, to take the Oath of Allegiance. Approved July
17, 1862, Ch. 205, Section 1, 12 Stat. 610.

"....Provided, however, That in order to authorize the said court to render
a judgment in favor of any claimant, if a citizen of the United States, it
shall be set forth in the petition that the claimant, and the original and
every prior owner thereof where the claim has been assigned, has at all
times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and
whether a citizen or not, that he has not in any way voluntarily aided,
abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government,
which allegations may be traversed by the Government, and if on the trial
such issue shall be decided against the claimant, his petition shall be
dismissed. An Act to amend "An Act to establish for Investigation of Claims
against the United States," approved February twentyfourth, eighteen hundred
and fiftyfive. Approved March 3, 1863, Ch. 152, Section 12, 12 Stat. 765,
767.

"...Whenever it shall be material in any suit or claim before any court to
ascertain whether any person or party asserting the loyalty of any such
person to the United States during such rebellion, shall be required to
prove affirmatively that such person did, during said rebellion,
consistently adhere to the United States and did give no aid or comfort to
persons engaged in said rebellion; and the voluntary residence of any such
person in any place where, at any time during such residence, the rebel
force or organization held sway, shall be prima facie evidence that such
person did give aid and comfort to said rebellion and to the persons engaged
therein." An Act to provide for Appeals from the Court of Claims, and for
other Purposes, Approved June 25, 1868, Ch. 71, Section 3, 15 Stat. 75.

Also see An Act making Appropriations for the legislative, executive, and
judicial Expenses of the Government for the Year ending the thirteenth of
June, eighteen hundred and seventyone, Approved July 12, 1870, ch. 251, 16
Stat. 230, 235.

All of these acts of martial law that require an oath of allegiance from
people who are already Citizens within the original meaning of the
constitution, are given a continuing affect through section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Under these acts under section 3 of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Citizens are or could be treated as being guilty of insurrection
or rebellion until they prove themselves innocent. This is again a reversal
of the commonlaw maxim that one is innocent until proven guilty and contrary
to the intent of the Fifth Article in Amendment, Constitution for the United
States of America.

For those of you that take offense to the use of the terms "Civil War," as
opposed to "the war between the states," as one party has already pointed
out to me, upon due consideration I continue to use those terms for a
reason. The cause of this war was the attempt of the national government to
interfere in the sovereignty of the several States through national civil
law; thus, the actual controversy, political as well as military, is known
as the "Civil War."

This was a war over the intrusion of civil law upon the common law. Diamond
v. Harris, (1830) 33 Tex 634, 638, calls the civil law (statutory law)
superior equity.

"It is difficult to see how the courts of this State are to ignore the
common law as a rule of decision, when it is made so by statute, and adopt
the civil law, even though it have the merit of superior equity." Diamond v.
Harris, (1830) 33 Tex 634, 638.

In the meantime civil law was the form of law imposed in the Roman Empire
which was largely, if not wholly, governed by martial rule.

Equity has always been understood to follow the law; to have superior
equity, is to turn things on their head. This is exactly what happens when
martial law is imposed. If equity is the law, then it follows its own course
rather than following the common law, thereby destroying the common law and
leaving what is called equity in its place. I can’t even begin to count the
number of times judges, lawyers and statesmen have said, "There isn’t any
common law anymore. It has been replaced by statutes." They would be more
truthful if they said, "There isn’t any commonlaw any more it has been
replaced by martial law."

The 1789 Judiciary Act, Section 16 (1 Stat. 82) prevented the courts of the
United States from entertaining a suit in equity where there was an adequate
remedy at law.

"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be
sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where
plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law." An Act to establish
the Judicial Courts of the United States, Approved September 24, 1789, Ch.
20, Section 16, 1 Stat. 73, 82.

This statute was taken from a principle well known to the common law and was
made by men who participated in the creation of our Constitution. The civil
law that followed the Civil War is found to be this socalled "Superior
Equity" instituted under the police power created in the Fourteenth and
related Amendments. This socalled "superior equity" can only be imposed
under conditions of martial rule where the law is in suspension.

If the judiciary has no right to proceed in equity when the law provides
adequate remedy, how does the Congress propose to statutize principles of
equity, and then claim to have made law? It would seem that such a practice
is wholly unlawful, in light of legal principles known to the Constitution
and to the several States at the time of its adoption.

As well, it must be noted that martial law is known, for the most part, to
follow the course set by men rather that the course set by law, its
jurisdiction being based on force and coerced consent. It must be justified
by those imposing it or they eventually will be held liable for damages
caused by its imposition.

What is called proclaiming martial law is no law at all; but merely for the
sake of public safety, in circumstances of great emergency, setting aside
all law, and acting under military power; a proceeding which requires to be
followed by an act of indemnity when the disturbances are at an end. 8 Atty.
Gen. Op. 365, 367, February 3, 1857.

The Framers understood commonlaw to be superior law in all areas where it
could be given effect. In fact the Constitution for the United States of
America incorporates the commonlaw in many of its provisions by using
commonlaw terms which only the commonlaw can define.

It should not be forgotten, that the first laws of the United States carry
great weight in construction of the powers given in the Constitution for the
united States of America, as well as the lawful manner of instituting those
powers. 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 264265 (1906).

"To all this mass of proof we have still to add, that Congress has
repeatedly legislated upon the same construction of the Constitution that we
have given. Three laws, two of which were passed almost immediately after
the Government went into operation, will be abundantly sufficient to show
this. The two first are particularly worthy of notice, because many of the
men who assisted in framing the Constitution, and took an active part in
procuring its adoption, were then in the halls of legislation, and certainly
understood what they meant when they used the words ‘people of the United
States’ and ‘citizen’ in that well considered instrument." Dred Scott v.
Sandford, (1856 1857), 19 How. (60 U.S.) 393, 419, 15 L.Ed. 691.

While the distinction between law and equity are now claimed to be abolished
by Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Combining both
jurisdictions under a singular procedure could only be done outside the
judicial power under martial rule. Some courts still seem to recognize some
distinctions in law and equity, possibly to avoid explaining the damage done
to the judicial power by this combination.

Getting back to the point, section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, we can see
that the southern States would be disabled from recovering their sovereignty
by propositions of this section, because, all that were sympathetic to their
cause would be, and were, refused office in the United States government.
This was necessary for the northern revolutionaries to maintain the results
of their usurpation of the Preamble to the Constitution and their imposition
of martial law.

According to McKee v. Young, 2 Bart 422, all that is necessary to constitute
"aid and comfort" as known in section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is
giving the enemy words of encouragement, or expression of favorable opinion
while occupying an influential position. 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 627. From this
it is obvious that southern public officials were targeted for punishment
for their attempts to maintain the power of the Preamble to the Constitution
for the united States of America, as well as the principles of Federal
government known to and required by that instrument.

NOTE: Secession of the southern States is not condoned, but a recognition
that the south seceded due to the usurpatious acts pursued by the national
government is intended. The several States did have the right to withdraw
their Senators from the national government to suspend its operation until
such time as it conform itself to the requirements of the constitution. It
is my opinion that secession was used by the northern revolutionaries as
justification of for the acts of a usurpatious national government, and that
this mistake should never be repeated.

It has been said that the 13th and subsequent amendments to the Constitution
bear the same authority as other provisions of the Constitution, being
amendments thereto, rather than bearing the inferior quality of statutes
which may be considered void when made without authority of the Constitution
as adopted.

Not only are these amendments contrary to the original intent of the
Framers, which recognized only a white sovereignty (We the people), but even
Congress has treated the Fourteenth Amendment as a mere statute. It is well
known that the Constitution for the united States of America may not be
amended by statute. Article 5, Constitution for the united States of
America. It is presumable that Congress fully understands this fact. An Act
of Congress Approved June 6, 1898, Ch. 389 (30 Stat. 432) provides "that the
disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution heretofore incurred is hereby removed."

According to Marbury v. Madison, (1803) 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 2 L.Ed.
60, either the Constitution is the supreme and paramount law, unchangeable
by mere legislative enactment, or it is a futile attempt by the people to
control their government. Either the Fourteenth Amendment has no more
standing than a statute or it violates the principles of government proposed
by the original Constitution by allowing Congress to change its provisions
by its own legislative authority. See Rogers v. Bellei, (1971) 401 U.S. 815,
91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed. 499, dissenting opinion, as to Congress changing the
intent of the Fourteenth Amendment by mere legislation. This being the case,
the Fourteenth Amendment must be something less than organic law.

Ironically enough, Madison (the defendant in Marbury v. Madison), in the
constitutional convention, while moving for the ratification of the
Constitution by the people rather than the State legislatures, agreed that a
legislature could not amend the organic law that put it into existence.

William M. Meigs of the Philadelphia Bar, in "The Growth of the
Constitution," See Vol. 8, Fed. Stat. Anno. reports Madison’s views:

"Madison thought the legislatures clearly incompetent (to ratify the United
States Constitution) for the very changes proposed would make essential
inroads on the State Constitution, and a legislature cannot change the
constitution under which it exists." 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 243.

On this, and other basis, the Constitution for the united States of America
was ratified by conventions of the people of the States rather than the
State legislatures. This raises another important question: Were or are the
State legislatures competent to ratify amendments to the Constitution, such
as the Fourteenth Amendment, which effectually change the State constitution
by the inroads made into it?

Obviously the constitutional convention thought that the State legislatures
are incompetent to ratify any organic law that adversely affected (changed)
their State constitutions. Therefore, this would appear to give further
validity to the proposition that the State legislatures may only amend the
Constitution for the united States of America according to Article 5
thereof, when the purpose of the amendment is to hold the United States
government to the limits of its original powers. Ratification of any
amendment, which expands power of the United States government, beyond its
original limits, must, therefore, by any theory, be ratified by conventions
of the people of the class mentioned Preamble in their respective States.

NOTE: The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were not ratified
by conventions of the people, and those amendments undermine the States’
constitutions by depriving both the governments of the several States and
the sovereign people of the several of a great deal of their powers, by
purporting to transfer power to the national government.

It must also be noted:

"There is no sounder rule of interpretation (of the constitution) than that
which requires us (the court) to look at the whole of an instrument, before
we (the court) determine a question of construction of any particular
part..." U.S. v. Morris, (1851) 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,815; See also Madison in
The Federalist, No. 41 and 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 253.

Could this be why there are great efforts being put forth with the socalled
"ConCon" to call a constitutional convention to give final validity to these
usurpatious acts of American legislators?

Regardless of this fact, it is obvious that the northern usurpation of the
Constitution for the united States of America favoring international
[interracial] law was to be protected from southern resistance by martial
law. By section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment Congress would be allowed to
decide when the principles of the Preamble were dead and when those who
maintained those principles were also dead, or when they were no longer a
threat to these usurpatious acts against our Constitution.

Considering the weight of the evidence, that the Fourteenth Amendment is of
martial law jurisdiction, we can begin to understand why it was thought that
Congress might repeal the disabilities of Section 3 without constitutional
amendment, outside of the scope of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18,
Constitution for the United States of America.

Over the years the patriots have had a great deal of trouble accessing the
judicial power. Since martial law suspends the judicial power along with
other regular powers of government this is quite understandable. Congress’
power is, practically speaking, unlimited where the regulation of courts
subjected to martial rule are concerned. Therefore, why would Congress think
that their power over the martial law measures in general is limited to the
Constitution?; especially since Congress claimed power under martial law
with the power clauses of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments. Thirteenth Amendment, Section 2, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5
and Fifteenth Amendment, Section 2.

A known maxim to the common law is that it supersedes the military power.
The framers of our national Constitution understood this principle when they
limited Congress power to make military appropriations to a maximum term of
two years. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, Constitution for the United
States of America. Many constitutions of the several States also make this
clear by requiring the military power to bear arms to remain subordinate to
the civil power.

For example:

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of
themselves, and the State, but the Military power shall be kept in strict
subordination of the civil power. Oregon Constitution, (1859) Article 1,
Section 27.

The Second Article in Amendment also makes the subordination of the military
power to the will of the people clear.

Some say we did not adopt the whole of the common law of England. This is
true to a certain extent. We did not adopt the monarchy and the feudal law
of England. We did adopt so much of the common law as was intended by the
Framers of the Constitution and those who ratified it. By the Ninth Article
in Amendment it is clear that all rights known to Englishmen were adopted,
were to be retained by the people. In addition, "the people" also assumed
unto themselves the powers of sovereignty, and the rights related thereto as
clearly indicated by the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Federal
Constitution. This is the American commonlaw.

In the Declaration of Rights and Resolves (1774), as well as the Declaration
of Independence (1776), some of the men who framed the Constitution,
complained of the force uses by the King of England that resulted in the
loss of trial by jury and violation of other many rights now known to be
protected by the Bill of Rights. At that time of American history the King
of England was already using military force (martial law) to govern the
colonies to deprive Americans of their rights.

Therefore, it cannot be presumed that Congress was ever given power to use
martial law of any form to govern within the several States.

Next is Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But
neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United
States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such
debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." Fourteenth
Amendment, Section 4, United States Constitution.

As previously in this article, we will continue to dissect the Fourteenth
Amendment, with a view to its legal effects sentence by sentence, continuing
with the remaining portion of Section 4 and going on through section 5.

The first sentence of section 4 provides:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.

For years, as patriots, we have been questioning the issue and use of paper
money by the national government. Of course we know that the main medium
which plagues us is the Federal Reserve Note. In our zeal to uphold the
original intent and purpose of our Constitution we have made a fatal error,
we have ignored this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The arguments that have been used against these Bills of Credit have always
focused on Article 1, section 8, Constitution for the United States of
America. For instance, we know that Congress is empowered to Coin money, not
print it.

"The Congress shall have Power * * * To coin Money, regulate the Value
thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
Article 1, section 8, Clause 5, Const. for the U.S. of A.

Under this clause Congress fixed the unit of measure for money coined by the
United States at 416 grains of standard silver (Legal Tender Cases, (1870)
79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 593, 20 L.Ed 287), calling the unit of measure a
dollar. This made the dollar’s silver a standard by which all other money,
foreign as well as domestic, would be measured. As a result, there is no
such thing as a gold standard in the United States. Congress has the power
to change the weight of a gold dollar without affecting the standard in
silver. In fact, Congress is duty bound to change the gold coin when it no
longer reflects a true comparative value to the standard (a dollar’s
silver).

Consequently legislation can be found, prior to the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, changing the amount of gold contained in a gold
dollar. Don’t forget the term dollar reflects a unit of silver. When the
term dollar is used with respect to gold it becomes a comparative term
between the value of gold and silver, with silver being the constant and
gold, in a sense, being given a respective value according to true economic
conditions.

The only way that one could avoid being compelled to accept a gold dollar of
lessor weight for the completion of contracts was to make specific reference
to the weight of gold to be transferred for payment, thus treating the gold
as a commodity rather than a monetary unit for purposes of the specific
contract. Legal Tender_Cases, (1884) 110 US 421, 449, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed.
204.

Although Congress had this power, concerning gold currency, Congress cannot
be deemed to have power to pass legislation which intended to reflect other
than the parity between the standard of measure (dollars silver) and the
gold dollar. To do so would be to deprive those contracting in gold dollars
of property, without due process of law, in that they could not recover the
true intrinsic value of their contracts. This would violate the Fourth
Article in Amendment by seizing property without warrant or probable cause
upon oath or affirmation, and would violate the Fifth Article in Amendment
by either taking private property for public use without just compensation
or by depriving property without due process of law.

The question is, can Congress issue paper and declare it to have an
unrelated value in gold or silver, or can it issue the same without
redemption and force these Bills of Credit to circulate among private
Citizens by operation of law? There is sufficient authority in the original
Constitution to show Congress was never intended to exercise such a power,
or at least not to exercise its power in such a way.

In the constitutional convention Sherman, in relation to Article 1, section
10, (Const. for the U.S. of A. said that "he thought this was a favorable
moment for crushing paper money." 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 177. This was an
extension of the convention’s "determination to prevent the evils of paper
money, already manifested by striking out from the powers of Congress the
power to ‘emit bills on the credit of the United States’." 8 Fed. Stat.
Anno. 178.

It should be noted that only the States were directly prohibited from
interfering in the obligation of contracts. During the house and senate
debates on H.J.R. 192 this prohibition was brought into view, and it was
answered that the prohibition did not apply to the federal government. While
this may be true, the Fourth and Fifth Articles in Amendment of the Bill of
Rights accomplish the same thing by prohibiting the seizure of property
without warrant or the deprivation of property without due process of law. A
man has property in his contracts and if the obligations of contract are
interfered with, then that property is deprived of the parties to the
contract. If this deprivation takes place without proper judicial
proceedings conducted within the limitations of the Bill of Rights the
taking of property is without authority of law.

When the question of Bills of Credit, in relation to the powers of Congress,
was raised in the convention, the power was offered with the clause "to
borrow money" on the credit of the United States. Governor Morris moved to
strike out the words "and emit bills on the credit of the United States."
Madison thought it would be enough to prohibit them from being made a
tender. Ellsworth thought this a favorable moment to bar the door against
paper money; Read, that the words, if not struck out, would be "as alarming
as the mark of the beast in Revelation". On this basis, the words were
struck out by nine States to two. See 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 148, 149.

It is obvious from the convention, as well as the powers granted to Congress
concerning coinage of money and borrowing of money on the credit of the
United States, that no direct or implied power was given Congress to force
circulation of its evidences of debt as a currency. While Congress has power
to borrow money on the credit of the United States, Congress has no power to
force any one to lend to the government, much less the power to spend debt
into circulation, without the intention of repayment whatsoever, as in the
case of Federal Reserve Notes. Promises to pay are not payment.

As a result of the money (credit) question, raised by the fourth section of
the Fourteenth Amendment, I have found it necessary to review the Legal
Tender Cases. For the most part those cases were decided during and after
the Civil War reconstruction period of the Civil War era when Martial Law
was in full bloom in the United States. By looking at these cases in this
new light, much can be gained in the way of understanding the money issue,
as well as the Constitution in general.

>From the Legal Tender Cases we first see that the supreme court of the
United States initially declared the legal tender statutes of February 25th,
1862, July 11th, 1862, and March 3rd, 1863 be upheld as "war measures,
exceptional in their character, not authorized by any express grant of the
power to Congress contained in the Constitution, but as not prohibited by
its terms, and as justified in view of the great public exigencies which
required their adoption". Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 20
L.Ed. 287. In other words paper money was declared legitimate as martial law
money, i.e. Military Scrip, an emergency war measure.

The supreme court in Thorington_v_Smith, (1868) 75 U.S. (8 Wall). 1, 9, 19
L.Ed. 361, in an opinion dealing with judgments of the Confederate courts
relating to property in dispute in that case, made a statement that is
applicable to this early decision favoring legal tender laws, made during
the hostilities of the civil war. The court said in Thorington:

"But such a judgment, in such a time, has little authority."

Although this was said in relation to Confederate judgments the principle
still applies. In times of war, during imposition of martial law, the will
to win and martial law may override all true logic, even down to the
principles of the organic law.

It appears that the supreme court held to this principle in the case of
Hepburn v_Griswald, (1870) 75 U.S. (8 Wall) 603, 19 L.Ed 513 . In Hepburn,
supra, the supreme court reasoned that the exigency which allowed the legal
tender character to be accorded to the civil war Greenbacks was over, thus
the conditions which implied the power, to make them legal tender, had
ended. Thus the law could no longer be held constitutional as in the past.

The dissenting opinion of the chief justice in a later legal tender case
reports the holding of the Hepburn court:

"The majority of the court as then constituted, five judges to eight, felt
‘obliged to conclude that an act making mere promises to pay dollars a legal
tender in payments of debts previously contracted is not a means
appropriate, plainly adapted, really calculated to carry into effect any
express power vested in Congress, is inconsistent with the spirit of the
Constitution, and is prohibited by the Constitution." Legal_Tender_Case,
(1870) 12 Wall. 571, supra.

The opinion of Hepburn was ordered to be published on January 29th, 1870,
and was decided in conference on November 27th, 1870.

"The action of Congress in passage of the first legal Tender Act was * * *
placed distinctly upon the ground of the existing imperative need of
government, and the legal tender clause was urged and adopted as a war
measure." [martial law] Julliard v. Greenman, (1884) 110 U.S. 421, 425, 4
S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204.

As many of us know, this is not the first time that the government has
claimed certain implied powers as an expedient of war or some other
emergency. Martial law measures have consistently been imposed under the
guise of "emergencies" of all kinds, Roosevelt being the greatest offender
since Lincoln. The Hepburn court, without directly overruling its previous
judgment upholding the legal tender acts, merely declared that the exigency
no longer existed and that continued enforcement of the statute must be
declared unconstitutional.

After the Hepburn ruling of the supreme court, the United States Attorney
General in the cases of Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis, 12 Wall 457, moved
to be heard on the Hepburn question. Julliard v. Greenman, supra, 110 US at
425. These cases were heard almost a year after the Hepburn case, with the
court reconstituted. Congress had passed an act allowing for an additional
justice and one of the justices concurring in the Hepburn case had retired.
These are the conditions under which the question was reheard.

Although the concurring justices in the Hepburn case had not changed their
opinion, the legal tender clauses were upheld 5 justices to 4, thus,
overturning Hepburn v. Griswald, directly. Many have said this was a packed
court, and this may be true. But, I don’t believe it (the court) was packed
merely to overturn Hepburn, rather, it was packed to assure that the recent,
and most controversial, Fourteenth Amendment would be upheld in its
entirety. The legal tender question, as we will see, was merely an incident
of the Fourteenth Amendment, because of the words of section 4.

In 1870 (December) the reconstituted court, for the most part, claimed to
base its ruling overturning Hepburn on the grounds laid out in the
dissenting opinion of the Hepburn case. The only real difference in the
opinions of the Hepburn court and this later legal tender case (Knox and
Parker, 12 Wall. (U.S.) 457) was that the dissenting opinion of Hepburn
became the concurring opinion of Knox and Parker, and the concurring opinion
of Hepburn became the dissenting opinion of Knox and Parker.

It was noted by the dissenting opinion of Justice Field, 12 Wall. 634, that
the court failed to give any reason for overturning Hepburn. The question
arises, with the turmoil and flat disloyalty and usurpations involved in
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment still remaining vivid in 1870, did the
court dare go to the 4th section of the Fourteenth Amendment for the
additional law it needed to justify such an upset in the supreme court. Note
that the Fourteenth Amendment was never touted as an amendment that would
allow Congress a legal tender power to force paper money on American
Citizens.

Justice Field begins his dissent:

"Nothing has been heard from counsel in these cases, and nothing from the
present majority of the court, which has created a doubt in the mind of the
correctness of the judgment rendered in the case of Hepburn v. Griswold, or
of the conclusions expressed in the opinion of the majority of the court as
then constituted. That judgment was reached only after repeated arguments
were heard from able and eminent counsel, and after every point raised on
either side had been the subject of extended deliberation." Legal Tender
Cases, 12 Wall. 634.

Obviously, no one had the guts to directly raise the Fourteenth Amendment in
defense of the legal tender statutes. And in fact, you will not find any
direct reference to it in the arguments of counsel or the majority opinion
of Knox and Parker, supra. Had the case turned on this point there may have
been another civil war spilling more blood than the last.

While I do not wish to go into a great deal of detail about the concurring
and dissenting opinions in these cases, the court did say some things that
we will find important to this discussion.

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly reveals the
injustice done by the amendment, as well as the injustice done to obtain
assent of the states to adopt it.

The court in Knox and Parker admits that Congress, by its legal tender laws,
if declared unconstitutional, has done a disastrous thing:

"Indeed, legal tender treasury notes have become the universal measure of
values. If now, by our decision, it be established that these debts and
obligations can be discharged only by gold coin; it, contrary to the
expectations of the parties to these contracts, legal tender notes are
rendered unavailable, the government has become an instrument of the
grossest injustice." Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 530.

By the legal tender law itself the government had become the instrument of
gross injustice to the rights of parties who had contracted for specie
payments, now the court is worried that the injustice really done will be
revealed. Congress also was worried about this, and that is why we have a
provision in the Fourteenth Amendment disallowing any question of the
"validity of the public debt", that is, the validity of Congress’ action. If
no one can question this action then how can the injustice be revealed?

It is further said by the court:

"It is incumbent upon those who affirm the unconstitutionality of an act of
Congress to show clearly that it is in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution." Legal Tender Cases 12 Wall. 531.

It must be noted that the litigants against paper money never addressed the
validity of the fourth section of the 14th Amendment. No one contested the
constitutionality of the fourth Section, and while the court alluded to its
principles, direct reference to it is avoided like the plague.

Throughout all the legal tender cases the justices in opposition to legal
tender present a most compelling legal argument, as well as historical facts
and motives of the framers and the people of the States, as references to
show that Congress had no power to enact a legal tender law making paper
acceptable as money, as ruled in Hepburn v. Griswald.

If looking only at the original organic law, as the Hepburn court did, these
arguments are absolutely valid. But, we must remember that we are not
dealing with only the original organic law, and neither was the supreme
court after the unconstitutional adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Fourteenth Amendment is claimed to be a part of the organic law, no matter
how false or erroneous that assumption may be. Also, in reviewing these
legal tender decisions, don’t forget that the supreme court is always on
notice of the Constitution in its entirety whether they mention any of its
specific provisions or not in their opinions.

If four supreme court justices won’t be heeded when relating the true
history and meaning of our original Constitution, where can we expect to
prove our point merely on the same grounds they raised, without dissuading
the effect of subsequent (socalled) amendments. This is exactly what we have
done in the patriot community, and this we haven’t done as well as justice
Field and his fellow dissenting justices. It seems like a very futile
attempt. All that could be said in the supreme court, about the original
Constitution, in relation to paper money has been said by its own justices;
with one exception; the relationship that the Fourteenth Amendment bears to
the subject, and the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is a mere fiction,
not a part of the Constitution. This has not been raised. We must answer the
question posed by justice Field, what allowed Hepburn to be overturned?

Let us look at some of the things said by the litigants and the court in
upholding the legal tender law. If I am right about the implications of the
fourth Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, then some reference must have
been made to it, even if only indirectly.

You might say that the validity of the public debt has nothing to do with
paper currency, or currency in general. The attorney general of the United
States, in arguing for paper money, disagrees:

"There is a kinship between the borrowing of money and the issuing of a
currency made valuable by being invested with all the facilities of money,
in evidence of that borrowing." Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 526.

Interestingly enough, no reference is made to the Fourteenth Amendment by
the attorney general when this statement was made, while the language
relates directly to provisions of the fourth section.

"A decent respect for a coordinate branch of government demands that the
judiciary should presume, until the contrary is clearly show, that there has
been no transgression of power of Congress * * *" Legal Tender Cases, 12
Wall 531.

Remember, new power was conferred upon Congress more plenary in its
character than ever before, with exception of the Thirteenth Amendment, as
you will see in our discussion of the Fifth section of the Fourteenth
Amendment, infra.

In speaking of the powers of Congress:

"It is allowable to group together any number of them and infer from them
all that the power claimed has been conferred." Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall.
534.

What about the new power of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The court admits that the Bill of Rights was intended to curtail those
questionable powers of Congress that may be implied, "these amendments are
denials of power" Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 535; and refers to the
Preamble of the Bill of Rights as setting that standard. This will be
further discussed with reference to who is competent to amend the
Constitution and under what conditions. But right after the court says this,
for the most part, the Bill of Rights is disregarded. Why, does the
Fourteenth Amendment supersede the Bill of Rights where the power exercised
is a direct power conferred after their adoption? This seems to be the
accepted opinion. Answer: The limitations of the Bill of Rights are
commonlaw principles, while the Fourteenth Amendment is martial law. When
martial law is put into effect it is used to suspend the common law,
rightfully or otherwise, and therefore supersedes it.

>From the standpoint of constitutional construction:

"If there be any conflict between an amendment and a provision of the
original Constitution, the provision found in the amendment must control,
under the rule that the last expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails
over an earlier one" 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 255.

This also raises the question, who is the lawmaker if there is to be a
change in the members of the sovereign body? Is it not the sovereign body
itself, rather than their creations (state legislatures or Congress)?

It is said that the Congress has power to borrow on the credit of the United
States, and the power to emit bills of credit is incident to that power. But
the court relates that when the legal tender laws were passed, it was the
fact that the credit of the United States had run out which caused the
exigency (emergency) requiring a legal tender law.

"Meanwhile the public treasury was nearly empty, and the credit of the
government, if not stretched to its utmost tension, had become nearly
exhausted * * *" Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 541 (Concurring opinion)

If the credit is exhausted where is their power to borrow on the credit or
any implied power under it? But, this is not true if the validity of the
debt cannot be questioned (Fourteenth Amendment, section 4).

The basic reasoning of the concurring court in Knox and Parker (Legal Tender
Cases 12 Wall. 457) was that Congress has the power to declare war and repel
insurrection (powers of martial law); from this power is implied the power
to make war or the power to execute such war (implied powers of martial
law); coupled with the war powers (martial law powers) is the power to
borrow money on the credit of the United States; when the credit of the
United States runs out or short an emergency exists (an excuse for
imposition of martial law measures) and, under the war powers, loans may be
forced. Under this implied power to enforce loans the government may issue
bills of credit evidencing the debt and force their acceptance by declaring
them legal tender. Here we see an implication of power not directly given,
in its fourth generation of implication, all justified under the power of
martial law. This is stretching things to say the least, and we have already
discussed the borrowing po
wer being extinguished when the credit of the United States becomes none
existent. The consequence of a marriage between the war powers and emergency
borrowing when there is no credit to borrow against is legal tender paper
money, which would be better called "martial law money."

Basically the power exercised in legal tender was a military power (martial
law power) and when we go back to the Hepburn case we see that to be true
according to the Supreme court. Now with the war over, wherein could the
implied martial law powers rest? They had no basis, this was the decision of
Hepburn.

It becomes obvious that Congress needed a new direct grant of power to
enforce the legal tender laws. Thus the fourth section of the Fourteenth
Amendment was purposed to maintain the validity of the public debt, leaving
the bills of credit issued as evidence of that debt valid, under an implied
power derived from a new source. Therefore, the Fourth Section of the
Fourteenth Amendment was intended to imply the power to make them
(greenbacks) a legal tender to maintain the validity of the debt from
another source. None the less, the martial law nature and origin of the debt
and its currency (legal tender) cannot be doubted. It is clearly stated in
the Fourth Section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

By the fourth section of the 14th Amendment Congress claims a new direct
power, as a basis for implied powers that could not lawfully be used except
by necessity of military exigency. The Fourteenth Amendment is an extension
of the Congress’ military (martial law) power over the entire United States,
not confined by any of the clause of the original Constitution for the
United States of America, if the Fourteenth Amendment is fact instead of
fiction.

Look at what is alleged to have started the Civil War. Allegedly a shot was
fired on Fort Sumpter. Congress has full power under Article 1, section 8,
clause 17 to govern forts, and it could truly be said an insurrection had
been done against not one of the United States, but against the property
under control of the Congress of the United States. Congress, claiming its
martial law "power to declare war," "suppress insurrections" and "repel
Invasions," imposed martial law on the United States and never discontinued
it. The resultan extension of military and municipal jurisdiction of
Congress. But where is the evidence of this? Look at the Thirteenth
Amendment, the Civil Rights Acts, the Legal Tender Laws, the Fourteenth
Amendment, etc., etc., etc.

The fact that Congress did not merely extend its coinage power over currency
is clearly admitted by the court:

"* * * nor do we assert that Congress may make anything which has no value
money. Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 553 (Concurring opinion)

Paper "money" then isn’t under the money powers of Congress but under the
military power in conjunction with the borrowing power and this power is not
the original power under the original constitution but an new and different
power of martial rule under the Fourth Section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The original borrowing power is only solvent when the credit of the United
States is intact. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment confers authority
beyond that known to the borrowing power of Article 1, Section 8, clause 3
which is obvious since it also relates to the validity of the public debt
and consequently borrowing to create that debt.

In previous articles we have made reference to the Federal and National
characters of the U.S. government. Justice Bradley says it is a national
power that prevents the States from seceding from the Union (Ibid at 555).
When this power is exercised in prevention of insurrection (as in the civil
war) it is a national power, and any powers implied by its exigencies are
also national powers. In this case we are clearly talking about the national
power of martial law.

The Fourteenth Amendment is an extension of national military powers
presently used in a municipal character, and enforced by municipal laws,
stretched far beyond their original limitations, and enforced in Article 1
tribunals. See the discussion of section 5 of the Fourteenth, infra
concerning Article 1 tribunals.

The court even had the nerve to go to the taxing power of Congress to draw
certain implications about Congress’ power. We know the lawful bounds of the
taxing power originally conferred are uniformity and apportionment. Franklin
referred to paper money as imposing "a kind of imperceptible tax". See,
concurring opinion of Justice Bradley, Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 557.
Without the Fourteenth Amendment how would such taxation be lawful? Don’t
forget the Fourteenth Amendment is considered the last word on the subjects
with which it deals.

In 1884 the case of Julliard v. Greenman again raised the legal tender issue
(110 US 421). Up to this point no one mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment in
legal tender litigation, at least as far as I have found. Twentysix years
after the Fourteenth Amendment the Plaintiff in Error in Julliard v.
Greenman finally makes reference to it:

"The forced loans of 1862 and 1863, in the form of legal tender notes, were
vital forces in the struggle for national supremacy. They formed a part of
the public debt of the United States, the validity of which is solemnly
established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Julliard v.
Greenman, 110 US 432.

The Fourteenth Amendment was further alluded to by the plaintiff in error:

"The question of the constitutionality of an act of Congress, as well as the
question of its construction, must be considered in the light of the history
of the time when it was enacted." Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 430.

Is this also not true of an amendment to the Constitution?

"And whenever the power sought to be exercised depends, or must be
predicated, upon a given state of facts, the existence of the power is a
judicial question to be determined upon the facts." Ibid.

And, after alluding to cases which support this principle, in development of
the martial law jurisdiction, wherein the law of the Fourteenth Amendment
lies; he goes on to say:

"The same doctrine is maintained in the Slaughterhouse cases, 16 Wall. 36."
Ibid.

The Slaughterhouse cases are adjudications of civil rights protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment, and are consistent with the other cases cited by the
plaintiff in error.

Then at the end of the page 430 the truth really comes out:

"The exercise of jurisdiction by a court or a legislature assumes the
existence of the jurisdiction in the tribunal or body exercising it." Ibid

What is really being said here? The Fourteenth Amendment has been here, and
Congress has been allowed to exercise jurisdiction under it for some 26
years, therefore it must be assumed to exist. Even the court upheld this
jurisdiction in the Slaughterhouse cases, and cases in the same jurisdiction
(martial law) have developed this principle where Congress’ power in martial
law was upheld. There is no inconsistency here.

I fully believe that the plaintiff in error in Julliard understood exactly
what he was talking about, especially when he says the Fourteenth Amendment
makes the public debt unquestionable in the same argument.

Of course, the Julliard court again gives the same arguments in favor of
legal tender notes, as had been given in the past. Again this argument which
seems to be lacking in something to give it validity. A close look at the
opinion again reveals the court alluding to the principles of the Fourteenth
Amendment to uphold its position and Justice Field dissents with the same
argument as he and his like minded associates had used in the past, still
failing to convince the majority of the court.

These, the arguments of justice Field, and many more arguments have been
offered by patriots against paper money. Consistently we have met with
little success with these arguments, when they are valid arguments under the
original Constitution of the United States.

The problem is that Congress has claimed new power through the Fourteenth
Amendment. We have been missing the point all along. Our attention has been
focused upon the original Constitution and away from those socalled
amendments that are designed to destroy our original concept of government.
By amendment it is said "The validity of the public debt * * * shall not be
questioned". If no one is allowed to question the public debt, then, how can
anyone question the notes representing that debt, or the enactments of the
legislature forcing us to accept it. We can not even question Congress’
adoption of the immoral principle of "I’d rather owe you than cheat you out
of it".

>From this we see that the only reason for this clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment was to, ex post facto, give validity to martial law acts not
authorized by the Constitution, and to prevent the people from contesting
those unauthorized acts of martial law.

Why have we not been able to prevent the increase of the national debt?
Because, we have no right to question the validity of the debt in court, as
long as the Fourteenth Amendment is considered a valid amendment to the
Constitution, which it isn’t. First we must attack the Fourteenth Amendment
as unconstitutional, before any of the otherwise valid arguments against
paper money will have any effect. We have not been making the wrong
arguments, we just haven’t directed them against the perversions of our
organic law.

Why do we have the Federal Reserve Corporation? If Congress is claiming
power to create an unquestionable public debt, then they will also claim the
right to exercise that power through any agent they wish, especially when
that agent simplifies the process of imposing the debt and increasing it,
Congress may claim this power under guise of the necessary and proper clause
Article 1, section 8, clause 18, but all of us will know that the power
actually lies under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, the power to
enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.

The civil war Congress not only wanted to protect the greenbacks in
circulation after the civil war but wanted to make provision for new and
increasing debt. Notice the words "including debts incurred * * * in
suppressing insurrection and rebellion * * *." Had Congress only intended to
protect the greenbacks of the civil war these would have been the only debts
protected. Instead, Congress also included the public debt in general,
allowing the inclusion of any debt enacted by Congress. If you wish to study
the Legal Tender Cases further, here are some of the authorities:

Houston v. Moore, (1820) 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 49, 5 L.Ed. 19.

Briscoe v. Bank of Commonwealth of Kentucky, (1837) 36 U.S (11 Pet.) 257, 9
L.Ed. 709.

Lick v. Faulkner, (1864) 25 Cal. 405.

Thorington v. Smith, (1868) 8 Wall. 1, supra.

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, (1869) 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533, 19 L.Ed. 482.

Legal Tender Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. 457, supra.

Legal Tender Case, (1884) 110 U.S. 421, supra.

It is clear from these cases that the Fourteenth Amendment is a continuation
of military power (martial law) exercised by Congress during the civil war
and that paper money (legal tender) is martial law money.

"But neither the United States nor an state shall assume or pay an debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United
states * * *"

One of the obvious intentions of these words, was to prevent the Southern
States from paying, and their creditors from collecting, debts incurred
through participation in the Civil War. Thus, all those persons who had
become the creditors to the Southern States were deprived of property
without due process of law. Such a deprivation of property by legislative
act constitutes a bill of attainder in its lesser form of a bill of pains
and penalties. Congress, as well as the States, are prohibited from passing
such acts in Article 1, sections 9 and 10 of the United States Constitution.
Further more, the act is an ex post facto law punishing the act committed
with a law enacted after commission of the act.

This being true, how could power be claimed by Congress to resolve to amend
the Constitution in this manner. How could the State legislatures claim the
power to ratify such an amendment?

This portion of the fourth section of the Fourteenth Amendment also acts as
an indemnification act for the United States by making it impossible for any
one to lay claims against the united for the destruction committed by the
armies of the United States while enforcing martial law upon the southern
States.

The final portion of the fourth section casts light on the money issue
previously discussed as well as the issues of the aforementioned paragraph.

"But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay * * * an
claim for the loss or emancipation of an slave; but all such debts,
obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

The enactment of Congress forcing the emancipation of the slaves, was a
great loss of property to those who held them in subjection. The first
emancipation was of slaves was ordered by proclamation of Abraham Lincoln,
President, acting as CommanderinChief of the Military forces of the United
States, and was later claimed to be made perpetual by the Thirteenth
Amendment. By operation of these enactments, property was taken and no
compensation was offered and military force was used enforce this
deprivation of property. Emancipation was born out of martial law and
survives under the power of martial law today.

The Fourth Article in Amendment makes such an unreasonable seizure of
property (seizure of property without warrant issued upon oath or
affirmation) unconstitutional and prohibits Congress from legislating to
this end. Similarly, the Constitutions of the States disable the State
legislatures in the same respect. Neither Congress or the State legislatures
had power to pass such legislation, whether in the form of an amendment or
statute.

In addition, the Fifth Article in Amendment prohibits the taking of property
for public use without compensation and further prohibits the taking of
property without due process of law. Due process of law requires a trial by
jury in civil cases a commonlaw (Seventh Article in Amendment) and
indictment and speed public trial by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, and etc., with the
right to subpoena witnesses and face our accusers, in criminal cases, (Six
Article in Amendment). Clearly, Congress knew that the could not prevent
claims "for the loss or emancipation of an slaves" from being successful in
southern courts. Also, Congress clearly knew that southern juries would
uphold claims against the United States as well as the Confederate States
for debts incurred and damages done by the Civil War. Instead of facing this
fact, Congress chose to usurp the law that would be enforced by juries, that
is, the commonlaw.

Moreover, the States are prohibited from passing any law violating the
obligation of contracts, Article 1, section 10, Constitution for the United
States of America. Every man who holds property lawfully acquired usually
has a bill of sale evidencing the transfer of ownership rights. The bill of
sale is an executed contract, and as such is one of the few contracts that
has real standing at law.

The courts of equity may void a contract for fraud and other similar
conditions, but no one has any power or right to interfere with valid
contracts, and the property rights acquired under them. If the State can
pass no such law, and the Constitution and its amendments are law, from
whence did the power come for the State legislatures to ratify such an
amendment? Martial law is the only answer.

As a result of this section of the Fourteenth Amendment litigation arose
concerning confederate currency. The adjudication of these cases is of
importance to our understanding of the issues concerning paper money. The
confederate currency bears similarities to the Federal Reserve Note of
today, that cannot be ignored.

Many have said that the use of Federal Reserve Notes gives rise to
jurisdiction over the transaction for which they were used. The confederate
currency being designed by the Southern States for all transactions therein,
although never made a legal tender, was considered to be " * * * a currency
imposed upon the community by irresistible force." Branch v. Haas, (1883) 16
F. 54; 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 630. In Thorington v. Smith, (1868)

8 Wall. 6, the supreme court said:

"They have no necessary relations to the hostile government, whether
invading or insurgent. They are transactions in the ordinary course of civil
society, and though they may indirectly and remotely promote the ends of the
unlawful government, are without blame, except when proved to have been
entered into with actual intent to further invasion or insurrection."

This is also true of Federal Reserve Notes which are imposed by irresistible
force on the normal course of life and business. Even more so since Federal
Reserve Notes were declared legal tender from beginning as were their
predecessors the green back.

In the same case, the court said:

"We cannot doubt that such contracts should be enforced in the courts of the
United States after restoration of peace, to the extent of their just
obligation." Ibid. See also, 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 237.

Many patriots have been contested the obligations of private contracts, on
the basis of unlawful issuance of credit or the medium of exchange
designated in the contract. We have, through such contracts, obtained
substance with the credit issued, which indicates that a just obligation
arose out of them. We will find ourselves hard pressed to abrogate such
contracts merely on the basis of currency designated:

"Transaction between individuals, which would be legal and binding under
ordinary circumstances, cannot be pronounced illegal and of no obligation
because done in conformity with laws enacted or directions given by the
usurping power. Between these extremes of lawful and unlawful there is a
large variety of transactions to which it is difficult to apply strictly any
general rule; but it may be safely said that transactions of the usurping
authority, prejudicial to the interests of citizens of other states excluded
by the insurrection and by the policy of the national government from the
care and oversight of their own interests within the states in rebellion
cannot be upheld in the courts of that government."

So, only those transactions which are specifically intended to support the
usurping power would be considered to have any connection with the
usurpation. In the meantime, those transactions, private in nature, only
made according to irresistible forces imposed upon the parties are without
blame of the parties and binding to their just value.

The bottom line is the money issue is a very weak if not a nonexistent
argument in relation to private contracts. The constitution applies to
governments interaction with the Citizen but not to Citizens interaction
with one another. The use of the Federal Reserve Notes, imposed upon us by
irresistible force, does not give rise to blame or attachment to the
usurping authority.

Although their may be one exception in the case of contracts adjudicated in
State courts. Under Article 1, Section 10, Constitution for the United
States of America, "no state shall make any thing but gold and silver a
tender in payment of debt." Therefore, in case were contracts make something
other than gold or silver a tender in payment in debt is doubt that state
courts would have jurisdiction to enforce them. Consequently, the State
court could adjudicate the obligation of the contract for Federal Reserve
Notes but could no make a judgment in that medium. This situation creates an
interesting paradox when you demand that a State court define the medium of
exchange in a judgment on such a socalled private contract written in terms
of legal tender.

The final section of the Fourteenth Amendment, as reported in the reprints
of the United States Constitution claims to authorize:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article." Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, United States
Constitution.

>From the words of this section it would appear to have little meaning. But,
an understanding of this section will lead us to a greater understanding of
this amendment’s repugnance to the original United States Constitution. We
will also see its repugnance to the constitutions of the several States and
the incompetence of the legislative bodies which claimed authority to ratify
it.

We know that this provision is identical to section 2 of the Thirteenth
Amendment which is also of martial law origin. The import of section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment, while being similar to section 2 of the Thirteenth
Amendment in some respects, is much different in other respects. The reason
is that the power clause of each amendment, while conducive to the same end,
put different powers into force, and when put in force apply those powers to
different objects.

The Thirteenth Amendment was specially designed to operate directly against
the Citizen holding Negroes in subjection. It directly removed property or
property rights from the hands of the Citizen mentioned in the Preamble to
the national constitution. As a result the Thirteenth Amendment is construed
to operate against individuals in general, as is legislation made in
pursuance thereof. This is not the case with the Fourteenth Amendment.

"We must not forget that the province and scope of the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments are different; the former simply abolished slavery;
the latter prohibited the states from abridging the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; from depriving them of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, and from denying to any the equal
protection of the laws. The amendments are different, and the powers of
Congress under them are different. What Congress has power to do under one,
it may not have power to do under the other. Under the Thirteenth Amendment,
it has only to do with slavery and its incidents. Under the Fourteenth
Amendment, it has power to counteract and render nugatory all state laws and
proceedings which have the effect to abridge any of the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States, or to deprive them of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny any of them the
equal protection of the laws. Unde
r the Thirteenth Amendment, the legislature, so far as necessary or proper
to eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude,
may be direct and primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether
sanctioned by state legislation or not; under the Fourteenth, as we have
already shown, it must necessarily be, and can only be, corrective in its
character, addressed to counteract and afford relief against state
regulations or proceedings." Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U.S. 3, 23, 3
S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835.

The Fourteenth Amendment operates against the States as a whole, that is,
either against the different branches of State government, or the people
(sovereign body) of each State, as a whole, when acting in their sovereign
or legislative political capacity to create or enforce State law.

Considering that Congress’ powers are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8,
Constitution for the United States of America, it is reasonable to assume
that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to give Congress new
powers or to extend some existing power beyond the limits established by the
original Constitution. In reference to the Fourteenth Amendment the supreme
court said:

"* * * It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. * * *" Ex
Parte_Virginia, (1879) 100 US 339, 344, 25 L.Ed. 676; 9 Fed. Stat. Anno.
634.

Not only did the supreme court say that Congress’ power was enlarged, the
supreme court also made it clear that it was only Congress’ power that was
enlarged and not that of the general government.

"All of the amendments derive much of their force from this latter
provision. It is not said that the judicial power of the general government
shall extend to enforce the prohibitions and to protecting the rights and
immunities guaranteed." Ex Parte_Virginia, (1879) 100 US 339, 344, 25 L.Ed.
676

This raises a peculiar question in relation to this claimed expansion of
power on the part of Congress. If the judicial power is not expanded by this
provision, then, is a court, upon whom Congress confers jurisdiction, in the
exercise of judicial power or the power of the Congress when adjudicating
civil rights cases? Any socalled court that enforces legislation under an
amendment with this or a similar power clause is proceeding as an Article 1
legislative tribunal of Congress, not as an Article 3 judicial court of the
Constitution.

We know from the Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7441 that the US Tax court is
what is known as an Article 1 (legislative) court (tribunal).

"There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the
United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court.
The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the
Tax Court." 26 U.S.C. 7441

We also know that an Article 3 court, that is, a court that actually
exercises the judicial Powers vested by Article 3, can be created by
Congress and vested with purely judicial Power.

Here we see that Congress exercises the power to create two different kinds
of courts, however, only one is vested with the judicial Powers known to
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. How do these courts differ? And what
power does an Article 1 court depend upon or exercise?

Once Congress has created an Article 3 court and vested it with specific
jurisdiction, it becomes independent of Congress. Its judges have perpetual
term of office as long as they are in good behavior (Article 3, Section 1).
Its judges may only be removed from office by impeachment (Article 2,
Section 4). The judges of an Article 3 court may not have their compensation
diminished during their term of office (Article 3, Section 1). It is only
courts with these attributes which actually can exercise the judicial Power
of Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It is only these courts which can
truly operate within the doctrine of separation of powers, a doctrine
indispensable to our republican form of government. See, Northern Pipe v.
Marathon Pipe, (1982) 102 S.Ct. 2858.

Since the officers of an Article 3 court may act without retribution for
their actions, the court has both the power and the duty to lay statutory
law next to the Constitution and see if the latter squares with the former,
and if the statutory law does not conform to the Constitution it must be
declared null and void. Marbury_v._Madison, 1 Cranch 137. This being the
attributes of an Article 3 court, the same must have been created by the
power granted in Article 3.

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in... such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article
3, Section 1, Const. for U.S. of A.

The words of this clause give the courts thereunder the attribute of
permanence by the words "ordained and established", that is, these courts
have a fixed character and they are as perpetual as the Union itself.

How does an Article 1 court differ in character when compared to an Article
3 court? And does an Article 1 court exercise the lawful judicial Power of
the United States?

Article 1 contains another reference to Congress’ power concerning what
appear to be courts:

"The Congress shall have power * * * To constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court;" Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, Const. for U.S. of A.

Notice the difference in wording between the clause of Article 1 and the
clause of Article 3. The latter makes reference to courts (inferior) while
the former refers to Tribunals inferior to the supreme court. Article 3 lays
certain requirements on tenure of office, etc., while Article 1 lays no such
requirements. So, in Article 1 we see the raw power of Congress without
respect to the limitations the Constitution places upon the Article 3
judicial powers. When that power (judicial power) is exercised within the
confines of Article 3 it is said that the court created is a judicial body
exercising a power separate from the legislature, which is the judicial
power conferred and limited by Article 3.

It is interesting to note that the Federal Statutes Annotated, Volume 8, p.
633, in discussing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, only makes mention of
Congress’ power under Article 1 being used within the confines of Article 3,
that is, up to 1864. Yet today we have tribunals known as Article 1 courts.
It would seem logical then to deduce that in 1864, or some time thereafter,
Congress’ power was extended in such a manner as to allow tribunals to be
created by the raw power of Congress without Article 3 limitations; and
without the necessity of Article 3 altogether. The Fourteenth Amendment was
allegedly ratified on July 9, 1868. In 1879 the supreme court ruled that
only Congress’ power was extended by the amendment (14th).

In relation to the Tax Court, Congress was allegedly vested with extended
power in the area of taxation (Sixteenth Amendment), and consequently we
have an Article 1 court with relation to the tax imposed under that
amendment.

Another point must be looked at in reference to these questions. Congress
has exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia:

"The Congress shall have Power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in
all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as
may... become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 17, Const. for U.S. of A.

But, this is not the power that is exercise by Congress under martial law
rule of the Civil War Amendments Congress also claims the power to
legislate, in certain cases, by implication of powers specifically granted:

"The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper in Execution of the foregoing power, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18,
Const. for U.S. of A.

This also is not the power exercised by Congress under the martial law rule
of the Civil War Amendments. This clause requires legislation to be both
"necessary" and "proper." The wording of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18,
requiring Congress legislation to be proper leaves it in the hands of the
judicial power to determine whether Congress action is constitutional. On
the other hand, the wording of the power clauses of the Civil War
Amendments, requiring on "appropriate" legislation to enforce the amendments
leaves it in the hands of congress to determine what legislation is
"appropriate" as a political consideration. Consequently, the courts of
judicial power are prevented from determining the constitutionality of
Congress action under these power clauses because judicial Courts have
always claimed they cannot decide political questions without violating the
separation of powers. Therefore, without challenging validity of the entire
amendment, we cannot challenge the constit
utional validity of any act of Congress under the amendment having this type
of power clause.

Taking all this into consideration, along with the alleged extension of
solely Congressional power authorized by section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it could only be deduced that an Article 1 court, created under
this power, exercises legislative rather than judicial power. Remember, the
power of the judiciary was not extended by section 5.

If an Article 1 court exercises only legislative power, then these courts
apparently do not have the power, as does the Article 3 court, to lay a
legislative enactment next to the Constitution and declare its validity or
invalidity. This is the design of the Civil War Amendments and any other
amendment with a similar power clause. Being in exercise of merely
legislative power the Article 1 court (tribunal) must follow the dictates of
the legislature (Congress) and no other, because it is merely an extension
of the legislature.

How many times have you heard of Tax Court cases when the Tax Court has said
either, the Constitution is inapplicable, or that a claim of Constitutional
limitations is frivolous? This alone supports the aforementioned
proposition.

This indicates, in the area of the Thirteenth and subsequent amendments,
that all power exercised under them is legislative, and any body that
exercises powers similar to those of section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,
are merely extensions of the legislature.

Now we see why the supreme court refers to the power clause as an
enlargement of power rather than a creation of new power. It is an
enlargement because the extension of martial power is used in conjunction
with previous powers initially conferred upon Congress.

Going back to Congress’ power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, look at
what the government’s own publication says in relation to the judiciary in
the District of Columbia.

"In the District of Columbia there is no division of powers between the
general and local government. Congress has the entire control over the
District for every purpose of government, and in organizing a judicial
department all judicial power necessary for the purpose of the government
may be vested in the courts of justice of the District." 8 Fed. Stat. Anno.
659.

All judicial power? This conveys the fact the Congress may create courts in
the District of Columbia under authority of Article 1 without reference to
Article 3 or any other provision of the original Constitution, so called
Article 1 courts are tribunals. Congress has followed a similar scheme in
the case of national Article 1 tribunals and in the case of vesting Article
3 courts with the power of Article 1 tribunals. This is why there has been
some confusion. Some people believe Congress has expanded its jurisdiction
over the District of Columbia and its territories beyond the limitations of
the Constitution into the several states. But this is in error. Congress has
expanded its jurisdiction through the power of martial law and created a
whole new venue, a regional venue. This is what regionalism is all about.

"The general restrictions of the Constitution which govern the exercise of
jurisdiction by the courts of the United States within the several states of
the Union have no operation in the District of Columbia, and the conditions
of jurisdiction existing in the District make the provisions of section 1 of
the Act of 1887, defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts in
districts within the several states, plainly inapplicable. General
provisions of an Act of Congress not locally applicable are controlling
under the provisions of sec. 93, Rev. Stat. D.C. Gilford Granite Co. v.
Harrison Granite Co., 23 App. Cas. (DC) 22 (1903).

Under the authority of Congress to make municipal law for the District of
Columbia, Congress need not hold to the Constitution, as it must with
respect to the several states, nor, it appears, even to the doctrine of
separation of powers which is inapplicable in the District of Columbia. A
similar scheme is followed in the case of martial law regionalism again
creating the aforesaid confusion, the difference being that judicial courts
are prevented from questioning the acts of Congress under martial, while in
the case of the District of Columbia the judicial courts had to power to
determine whether Congress had exceeded the limits of authority related to
the District of Columbia.

We know that the Fourteenth Amendment interferes with the sovereignty the
several States retained prior to its alleged ratification. If this was a
mere expansion of municipal power of the District of Columbia the judicial
courts would be able to adjudicate the constitutionality of the expansion of
venue and jurisdiction. But this is not the case. The Fourteenth Amendment
places prohibitions upon the states that never existed before, without
reference to the District of Columbia or other territory of the United
States, which said prohibitions encroach upon State sovereignty:

"The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the states and
they are to a degree restrictions of state power." 9 Fed.Stat.Anno. 631.

Congress’ power allegedly was extended into State sovereignty. Was Congress’
municipal authority over the District of Columbia extended into the several
States to create Article 1 courts in the states to enforce the Fourteenth
Amendment? The power exercised is purely legislative, not judicial, but it
is not the power over the District of Columbia, it is national martial law
power, not limited by constitutional provisions related to the District of
Columbia or other territory appertaining to the United States.

It’s unquestionable that Congress conferred jurisdiction on the courts of
the United States to hear civil rights cases. The power exercised being
purely congressional, any court which exercises jurisdiction pursuant to the
Fourteenth Amendment acts as an Article 1 tribunal. You might say, but
Article 3 courts were vested with this (civil rights) jurisdiction. That may
be true, but, when an Article 3 court exercises a legislative power it must
act as a legislative tribunal and is reduced to an Article 1 tribunal for
the adjudication of such cases.

Either the tribunal exercises the power of the legislature, or it exercises
the power of the judiciary as a court. The body (tribunal or court) cannot
exercise both legislative and judicial powers simultaneously under the
original Constitution, and since only the power of Congress is allegedly
enlarged by section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment a tribunal cannot exercise
both powers under this clause either.

Who can claim these Fourteenth Amendment protections, and through whom is
this national martial law power of Congress extended into the several
States?

"Until some state law has been passed, or some state action through its
officers or agents has been taken, adverse to the rights of citizens sought
to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, no legislation of the United
States under said amendment, nor any proceeding under such legislation, can
be called into activity;... the amendment was intended to provide against...
state laws or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the
citizen secured by the amendment." Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U.S. 3, 13
3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835; 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 631.

Nonwhites are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore congress
found these "persons" fit instrument for spreading their martial law
jurisdiction throughout the several States. The unfortunate part of this for
persons of color is that they have been led to believe they are allowed to
access the judicial power of the United States when the truth is that they
have only been allowed to access the arbitrary power of Congress under the
Civil War Amendments. This is why persons of color in the United States
continue to feel they have no rights, because they have no independent
judicial power to protect them.

Thus, Congress legislates between two or more races. A Nation is a race or
vice versa (Title "Nation", Webster’s Dictionary [1828]). Congress’
legislation then is based on principles of international law, and therefore
is a form of international law for all intents and purposes. Martial law and
international work well together for Congress purposes because do not
respect the authority of the commonlaw.

The exercise of martial jurisdiction, within the several States, is the
usurpation of the common law and subjects the sovereign body (white
citizenry) to a jurisdiction that has no right within the State.

Furthermore, since the amendment only can invoke Congress’ power, when
involving those intended to be protected thereby (such as the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments), white Citizens have no right to sue under this
amendment.

There is, of course, one exception to this rule. If a white Citizen acquires
the same legal status (artificial character) as those protected by the
amendment, through the operation of some statutory law of Congress, then
said white Citizen may be brought within the venue of the amendment as a
statutory (juristic) person. By this means white Citizens birthrights become
of no affect and their rights are reduce to the inferior character of
statutory civil rights (mere legislative privileges)

It must be remembered that the white Citizen obtaining this status will also
be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (of the United States Congress) and
can legally be regulated by the laws Congress passed under its martial law
authority. Here the extension municipal laws of Congress outside the
boundaries set by the U.S. Constitution is complete. By this contrivance,
and others emanating from the Fourteenth Amendment, the states have been
reduced to mere administrative arms and provisional appendages of Congress
and Congress’ power has been extended to include the entirety of the United
States.

The difference between the white man holding citizenship intact according to
the Preamble of the United States Constitution, and all others who claim
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, is the difference between a
natural birthright known to the commonlaw, or privilege or immunity
guaranteed by the original Constitution, and a so called right, privilege or
immunity created by the Constitution and statute (a privilege or immunity
that never before existed for the party upon whom it was conferred by statut
e). The supreme court has recognized that Congress may protect both.

"A right or an immunity, whether created by the Constitution or only
guaranteed by it, even without an express delegation of power, may be
protected by Congress." Strauder v. West Virginia, (1879) 100 US 303, 310,
25 L.Ed. 664 reversing State v. Strauder, (1877) 11 W.Va. 745.

But, I would venture to say that a Citizen will find more protection in a
natural right than a privilege conferred by Congress. The institution of
government was inherently for the protection of natural rights (Preamble
U.S. Const.), while the granting of a privilege is merely at the tolerance
of the sovereign body that created government and at the tolerance of the
government the sovereign body created. The main point is that the courts
have recognized that there are both natural rights and those so called
rights artificially created by law (privileges).

In fact, State common law (natural rights) seem to receive no protection. It
should also be noted, that where a State government has agreed to usurp its
sovereign body (free white State Citizens) and show itself disloyal to them
by passing legislation in conformance with the Fourteenth Amendment,
Congress’ power is extinguished. In this relation the U.S. supreme court
said:

"When the state has been guilty of no violation of its provisions; when it
has not made or enforced any law abridging the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; when no one of its departments has deprived
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or
denied to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws; when on the contrary, the laws of the state, are enacted by its
legislative, and construed by its judicial, and administered by its
executive departments recognize and protect the rights of all persons, the
amendment imposes no duty and confers no power upon Congress." US v. Harris,
(1882) 106 U.S. 629, 632, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290.

In other words, when State martial law is imposed within the State to
enforce national martial law Congress has no reason to exercise its martial
law powers.

If your State has conformed to the new order there is no need for Congress
to intervene. And if you, as a white Citizen, have not obtained the standing
of a former slave by petitioning Congress for admittance to venue and
jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e. statutory character of
"person"), then Congress has no power over you under this clause (Amend. 14
sec 5). 9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 633.

With all that has been said about the Fourteenth Amendment in this two part
article the ultimate question remains, is the Fourteenth Amendment a part of
the United states? Or, rather, is it constitutionally a part of our organic
law?

The original resolution which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the
several States legislatures for ratification contained a clause which does
not appear in the reprints of the United States Constitution:

"Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses
concurring). That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of
the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
which, when ratified by three fourths of said legislatures, shall be valid
as a part of the Constitution, namely: Article XIV * * *" 14 Stat. 358
(1866).

In looking into the constitutionality of this amendment, we must look to see
who proposed it; who ratified it; and if power was actually vested in those
bodies by the people of the United States of America in national
Constitution to lawfully do so.

>From the foregoing Preamble to the resolution proposing the Fourteenth
Amendment we can see that Congress proposed it, and it was intended that the
several States legislatures would ratify it.

There is a great deal of recorded history that shows the unscrupulous way in
which ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was achieved. The basic
disloyalties, the martial law, and political usurpations that took place
after the Civil War are revealed by history to be;

(1) Military occupation of the several southern States under declaration by
Congress, that the southern State governments were not valid, even though
they had just been allowed to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment;

(2) franchisement of noncitizens (basically Negroes) into the body politic;

(3) disfranchisement of white Citizens (members of the sovereignty) from the
body politic;

(4) institution, through a military government, of predominantly

Negro legislatures (while Negroes were not citizens); and

the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by these noncitizen
legislatures in the southern States, after the lawful legislatures, which
existed prior to military occupation, had rejected this same amendment.
(6) In a nut shell, there is no doubt that these are the historical facts.
If you wish to see the actual proclamations of the president and the acts of
Congress that perpetrated this hoax, we will be making them available soon
in an outlined argument against the constitutionality of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Also a treatise entitled Flack on the Fourteenth Amendment, gives
well documented history of this era, and we encourage you to read it. You
can obtain a copy of this treatise from Behold! Newsletter for $40.00 cash.

However, this history only establishes the political immorality of the
participants in this portion of our history. It does not necessarily
establish the unconstitutionality of the acts perpetrated by these disloyal
politicians.

Basically, if we only present the history to the courts, without a legal
basis that the courts can address the courts will rule that this is merely a
political question, and that the courts can not rule on political policy,
and methods of offering and passing legislation. The courts will tell us
that what Congress and the legislatures of the several States do internally
is not within the providence of the courts to question under the doctrine of
separation of powers. They will say we have not presented a justicable
controversy. They will say that we have not shown an absence of power in
Congress or the legislatures of the several States to offer and ratify the
amendment. They might even say that it is an expression of the will of the
people, through their respective legislatures and the amendment is the final
expression upon which the judiciary has no right to rule against according
to the evidence presented.

Now this may seem quite unfair, immoral, and unjust. But, the fact is, as
previously mentioned, an Article 3 court must lay the legislation passed
next to the Constitution and determine whether or not power actually existed
or had been conferred to those passing the enactment into law, and whether
that power was exercised within its constitutional limits. All other
questions will be considered merely political. The bottom line is, we must
have a legal, not a political, controversy in a court of law.

Okay, so let’s take a look at the legal side of the question! We know
several things about the Fourteenth Amendment in relation to Congress and
the prohibitions laid against Congress by the original Constitution for the
United States of America, including the Bill of Rights. We know that the
amendment was designed to do, and that it does do the following things:

1. It violates the Preamble, which defines the whole intent of all powers
granted to Congress, by introducing a foreign member into the sovereign
body.

2. It is an ex post facto law punishing southerners in many ways for acts
not necessarily illegal at the time of their commission.

3. It is a bill of attainder (in its lesser form of a bill of pains and
penalties) depriving all southern slave holders of property without trial.

4. It deprived southerners of property by unreasonable seizure and without
just compensation, bringing Congress beyond limitations set out by the
Fourth and Fifth Articles in Amendment (Bill of Rights).

5. It lays prohibitions upon the States beyond those known to the original
Constitution of the United States and makes inroads upon the Constitutions
of the several States encroaching upon sovereignty belonging to the people
of the several States which is prohibited by the Tenth Article in Amendment
(Bill of Rights).

6. It created purely legislative tribunals without respect to the separation
of powers.

7. It extended Congress’ martial law power allowing the emission of bills of
credit and etc. The list is too long to completely enumerate. (Refer back in
this article to list more constitutional violations)

We know that the United States government is one of enumerated powers only,
and that specific prohibitions were placed on those powers by Article 1,
section 9 and the Articles of the Bill of Rights as well as other provisions
of the United States Constitution.

Of course, the main points we are interested in are the prohibitions laid on
Congress. Congress has no power to pass any bill of attainder or ex post
facto law; to make law which unreasonably deprives a Citizen of property or
deprives the Citizen of security in his person or effects; to encroach upon
a State’s sovereignty retained at the adoption of the United States
Constitution, or to make any law taking property for public use without just
compensation.

The fact is, Congress exceeded the powers granted to it and violated
prohibitions laid against it, in several areas and had absolutely no right,
power, or authority to propose such legislation and could only claim an
exception through a similarly unlawful act, the second section of the
Thirteenth Amendment. Thus we find we will have to show the Thirteenth
Amendment invalid and unconstitutional and in fact not a part of the
Constitution, in order to judicially destroy the Fourteenth Amendment, at
least with respect to the power of Congress as regards the proposing the
Fourteenth Amendment.

But now let’s take into consideration who actually claimed the power to
ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, the state legislatures. I know everyone in
government claims the Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the Constitution
because it was ratified according to the provisions of Article 5 of the
original U.S. Constitution which says that three fourths of the legislatures
may ratify an amendment to the Constitution and thus make the amendment a
part of the organic law. But can the legislatures of the several States
constitutionally make ratifications in all instances?

According to the principles upon which our form of government is founded and
considering who originally ratified the Constitution, the answer to this
question must be in the negative as a matter of law. We start to see the
evidence in the law immediately with Article 5 of the Constitution for the
United States of America.

"* * * Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner effect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Article 5, Const. for U.S. of A..

Here we see two specific exceptions to the law of amendment contained in
Article 5. Many times the courts have ruled that when specific exemption is
provided, in the Constitution, that none other exists. In this case that
construction will not properly apply, especially since those exceptions
applied both to the State legislature and conventions of people of the
several States.

When the construction of the Constitution is doubtful or the language
ambiguous resort may be made to other portions of the Constitution and
finally to the convention notes and the Federalist papers. Article 5
contains two methods of amending the Constitution;

"* * * by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by
Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress: * * *" Article 5, Const. for
U.S. of A.

Why were the two modes of ratification provided for? Is it possible that
cases might arise where it was absolutely necessary for conventions of the
several States to ratify an amendment instead of the several State
legislatures? And if an amendment required ratification by conventions of
the people of the several States, could Congress expect a lawful and
constitutional ratification from the legislatures of the several States?
Furthermore, even if Congress could recommend either mode of ratification
could the State legislatures lawfully and constitutionally make this
ratification when it affected the Constitution of the State which created
them? These are valid and important questions which must be answered as a
matter of, and according to, law, in relation to Article 5 and the two modes
of ratification. These questions consequently leave the language of Article
5 in somewhat of an ambiguous state.

To find the answer to these important questions, we will start at the
beginning, the creation of our government. Justice Taney in Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 19 How. (60 US) 393, 404412 (1857) relates the history of the
beginning of our government and the meaning of the Preamble to the United
States Constitution. Therein we find, as we do in the words of the Preamble,
that the sovereign people "We the People" adopted (ratified) the
Constitution, and it was on their authority as the sovereign bodies, in
their respective States, that the General Government was formed; and that it
was formed for their protection, as well as the protection of their
posterity.

Some might say that the Constitution for the United States of America could
as easily have been ratified by the legislatures of the several States, but
if this is true why does history, as well as the Constitution, reflect that
it was ratified by the people in conventions of the several States instead?
(See Article 7, Const. for U.S. of A.) The fact is, the legislatures of the
several States had no lawful authority to ratify the United States
Constitution. The convention related the legal reason why the Constitution
had to be ratified by the people instead of the legislatures. The following
remarks were made with reference to Article 7, Constitution for the United
States of America.

"* * * Madison thought them essential and remarked that otherwise in cases
of conflicts between laws of the States and of Congress, the courts of the
former might decide in favor of their own laws; and he remarked further that
it might be asserted that the Union was a mere treaty among independent
States, and therefore a breach of any one article absolved the other parties
from the whole obligation," 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 243.

Here Madison thought the peoples ratification necessary to the supremacy
clause of Article 6. Knowing this, contrary to the ruling of the Supreme
court of the United States in Neal v. Deleware, (1880) 103 U.S. 370, 26
L.Ed. 567, the supremacy clause of the national constitution could not be
applied the amendments which made inroads into the Constitutions of the
several States, and which were only ratified by State legislatures.

Question: Is this why the several States have been coerced

to amend their own constitutions consistent with national martial

law amendments?

Question: Is this why the provisional States, such as the provisional State
of Washington, discussed in BEHOLD! Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 2, February
1993, were induced into placing a provision in the socalled State
constitution making the United States Constitution the Supreme Law of the
Land? Washington Constitution (1889), Article 1, Section 2.

If the State constitutions declare the national constitution supreme, then
the supremacy clause of the national constitution will not come into play in
adjudications concerning the Civil War Amendments and like amendments.

If the State constitutions adopt the provisions of consistent with the Civil
War Amendments and like amendments, then, again, the application of
supremacy clause of the national will not be questioned concerning conflicts
of law between the States and the United States because there will be no
conflict of law.

Later in the convention:

"Governour Morris argued that, as no alteration could be made under the
Confederation without unanimous consent, and change in the proposed
Constitution not made in accordance with this provision, must be held void
by the judges as unconstitutional, if the reference would be made to the
legislatures; while, if the reference should be made to the people of the
United States, the federal compact may be altered by a majority of them." 8
Fed. Stat. Anno. 243.

Morris understood that the people were sovereign above the several State
legislatures. Finally Madison made the most important legal argument showing
that the States legislatures were incompetent to ratify the Constitution for
the United States of America and this argument still applies today.

"Madison thought the legislatures clearly incompetent, for the very changes
proposed would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and a
legislature cannot change the Constitution under which it exists. The
difference between a system founded on the legislature only and one founded
on the people is, he said, that between a league or treaty and a
Constitution." 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 243, 244.

While all the other conventioneers arguments related to the Articles of
Confederation, Madison was capable of showing the absolute legal
incompetence of the State legislatures to ratify the national Constitution.
If a State legislature allows inroads to be made upon the Constitution under
which it exists, by ratification of a National Constitution, much less an
amendment thereto, it is constitutionally incompetent to pass upon the
legislation. This is consistent with the principles of a constitutional
republic where the institutions of government cannot change the organic law
of the people under which the government legally exists. Only the sovereign
body (the people) can act upon such legislation because it is organic law
(extraordinary legislation) not mere ordinary legislation.

We have seen the inroads that the Fourteenth Amendment made on the
Constitutions of the several States, whether they were Southern or Northern.
With the possible exception of one or two States, this amendment made
inroads into the all the State constitutions under which the State
legislatures existed when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Here the
reason for two methods of ratification comes to light in the first instance.

It may be said that the notes on the convention are not a reliable source of
construction of the Constitution. And in certain cases this may be true. But
not here! The supreme court, as in Dred Scott v. Sandford, supra 19 How. at
419, has said that legislation most recent to the adoption of the
Constitution lays closest to the foundation of the Organic Law and must be
accorded the necessary respect due according to the era of their enactment.
Obviously this is true considering that such legislation is contemporary to
the organic law. That is, it is contemporary to a time when the original
intent was foremost in the minds of the officials of government, both State
and Federal.

Article 5 had at least one primary purpose in the Constitution. In the
convention it was agreed that provision should be made in the Constitution
so that the several States might add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution as
a condition of its adoption.

Pursuant to this proposition of the convention, and with the understanding
that a Bill of Rights could be added, conventions of the people of the
several States ratified the Constitution and proceeded to propose articles
of the Bill of Rights to be added accordingly.

In the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, seldom found reprinted in any
Constitution, whether printed by the federal government or private parties,
we find the first impression of the several States, as to the purpose of
Article 5, Constitution for the United States of America.

The Bill of Rights was ratified by the legislatures of the several States;
of this there is no doubt. Obviously both Congress and the several States
legislatures believed they had the power to make the ratification. When we
look at the Preamble to the Bill of Rights we see under what circumstance
the power was believed to exist:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declarative and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution.

"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, two thirds of the Houses, that the following
Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles when
ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all
intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution. vis!

"ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of
the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
Constitution." Preamble to the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const., 1 Stat. 97.

So, the Bill of Rights as ratified by the State legislatures was ratified
with the intention of limiting the federal government to the power granted
to it, for the preservation of the powers of the several States and the
singular Citizen’s natural rights. Here the legislatures of the several
States did not attempt to expand the powers of Congress, by inroads into
their own respective Constitutions, but, instead, ratified added assurance
that Congress would not usurp its powers in deprivation of the powers of the
several States or the people of the several States respectively. Articles
Nine and Ten in Amendment.

If we read Hans v. Louisiana, (1889) 134 U.S. 1. 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842,
we find that the State legislatures again ratified an amendment of the
United States Constitution with the same purpose, that is the Eleventh
Amendment. Not until the Thirteenth Amendment, were the powers of Congress
so widely expanded, or for that matter expanded at all, by an alleged
amendment to the Constitution. Going back to the assertions of Madison in
the convention, where did the legislatures of the several States derive
power to ratify any amendment which made inroads into the Constitution under
which they existed? The power in itself would be nugatory.

Obviously Article 5 provides for ratification of an amendment by conventions
of the people of the several States for instances such as this. In fact the
principles upon which the federal Constitution was founded absolutely demand
that such amendments be ratified by the people rather than the State
legislatures. No legislative body has the power to change the organic law
and its relation to the sovereign body (nation) that created it. Only the
sovereign people themselves have the power to add to its members a new class
of persons.

As a result we see that no competent body purposed or ratified the
Fourteenth Amendment, or any like amendment affecting the sovereign body,
that said amendment is not a part of the Constitution for the United States
of America, and that the amendment and like amendments are absolutely
unconstitutional in this respect. They are not amendments of our
Constitution.

Not only do amendments such as the Fourteenth Amendment make inroads into
State constitutions, especially where the States have a Bill of Rights
similar to that of the Constitution for the United States of America, but,
the several State legislatures are also prohibited by "the people" in the
Constitution for the United States of America itself, from enacting
(ratifying) such legislation into law.

Article 1, Section 10, Constitution for the United States of America, lays
prohibitions on the several States similar to those laid against the United
States government in Article 1, section 9, Constitution for the United
States of America, with one further prohibition; the several States have no
power to violate the obligations of contract by laws enacted in the State.
As we previously discussed, many bills of sale (executed contracts) that
were violated by the Thirteenth Amendment were sanctioned to be violated by
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Not only are the State legislatures prohibited by their own respective State
Constitutions from passing such legislation, but they are also prohibited by
the Constitution for the United States of America from passing such
legislation into law, organic or otherwise. We find no repeal of those
original prohibitions at any time before or after the alleged adoption of
the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments.

The bottom line is that the State legislatures were and are incompetent to
ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, that said amendment is absolutely
unconstitutional and therefore null and void, no power of ratification
having existed in the bodies to whom it was presented for ratification.

I cannot emphasize my opinion enough that, as a matter of law, there is no
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that even
if there were, it would have absolutely no lawful application to individual
free white Citizens of the several States.

While it is true that the most recent amendment of the Constitution is the
last word on its subject matter (8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 255), if the ratifying
bodies are constitutionally incompetent to ratify the particular amendment
we must revert to the original Constitution to determine the Organic Law of
the government of the Union of States (emphasis mine).

Summary:

The 14th Amendment was to provide the Congress with the authority to
legislate on Federal citizens and to bring the free white state Citizens
under the authority of Congressional legislation. The Due process Clause of
the 14th Amendment was to grant authority to Congress to abolish the
Original Intent that all legislation would be mandatory to follow the
principals of the Commonlaw. The Due Process of the 14th Amendment allowed
Congress to create Federal Courts of limited judicial power and claim that
Congress could create these Courts by authority of Article III section 2 of
the Constitution for the United States, where by Congress could claim these
Federal Courts were authorized by Article III. Congress also decided they
could under the Military Powers of the United States issue Military Scrip
and create Military Venues [federal regions] covering the entire Nation to
circulate Federal Reserve Notes i.e. Military Scrip. Wake up Citizens you
are about to be delivered to the A
ntiChrist.

//

Robert Wangrud.


--

We saw some film of this where the American mlitary police/soldiers were
putting DUCT TAPE on the faces and mouths of the people they were
detaining....  just like we have recently become aware of as a police
control method being used in the US on CHILDREN by state torturers and
murderers here in the states.

On the videotape you could clearly see thousands of machine gun bullet holes
in the peoples houses across the bottom portion of the house, in a line at
low level through all their doors and walls where the soldiers just mowed
down anyone inside in the line of fire.... one man said they had taken the
young men and executed them for no crime at all.... their sons and
husbands.....

YOU THINK THEY WONT DO THIS HERE?????

They are already doing this kind of abuse to children in state wardship.
When it comes out, the state refers to this torture as "therapy", "control
tools" and cover up criminal evidence in the courts, always protecting the
liability to the system.

  THEY ARE  BEING TRAINED NOW OVER THERE TO COME BACK HERE AS MILITARY
POLICE.... THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS HERE AND IT IS SILENCED......

From: Rick Stanley <rick@...>


STANLEY NOTE:  Sounds like the USA.  I suppose we have to import our police
state to Iraq as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raja Mattar" <ranimar@...>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: Families live in fear of midnight call by US patrols


[The Zionist training of the occupation troops in Iraq! Or is it actual
Zionist
presence?]


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-739722,00.html


Families live in fear of midnight call by US patrols
>From Daniel McGrory in Baghdad

July 09, 2003

Despair: Ghania Hassan says that her eldest son is being held as a looter
for eating a biscuit given to him by a US soldier

NEVER again did families in Baghdad imagine that they need fear the midnight
knock at the door.

But in recent weeks there have been increasing reports of Iraqi men, women
and even children being dragged from their homes at night by American
patrols, or snatched off the streets and taken, hooded and manacled, to
prison camps around the capital.

Children as young as 11 are claimed to be among those locked up for 24 hours
a day in rooms with no light, or held in overcrowded tents in temperatures
approaching 50C (122F).

On the edge of Baghdad International Airport, US military commanders have
built a tent city that human rights groups are comparing to the detention
camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Remarkably, the Americans have also set up another detention camp in the
grounds of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad. Many thousands
of Iraqis were taken there during the Saddam years and never seen again.

Every day, relatives scuff their way along the dirt track to reach the razor
wire barricades surrounding Abu Ghraib, where they plead in vain for
information about the whereabouts of the missing.

The response from impassive American sentries is to point to a sign,
scrawled in red felt-tip pen on a piece of cardboard hanging on the barbed
wire, which says:

"No visits are allowed, no information will be given and you must leave."

Some, like Ghania Hassan, sink to their knees in despair. She holds a
photograph of her eldest son, Mohammed Yasim Mohammed, a 22-year-old
student. She said that he was walking through al-Shaab market with friends
when passing troops saw him eating biscuits from an American military ration
pack and accused him of being a looter. Allegedly he was pushed face down on
the street while his friends tried to explain how a soldier a couple of
streets away had given them the biscuits.

A month later nothing has been heard of the young man. His mother showed a
fistful of letters and petitions that she has collected from US officials,
local magistrates and a Muslim cleric, but she and the rest of the
complainants were told at gunpoint to move away from the prison gates.

Such behaviour merely fuels the growing hostility between local people and
the soldiers they had welcomed barely three months ago.

Families will naturally protest the innocence of their relatives, but the
accounts, such as that of Aliah Khadoum, who describes how her son went out
to buy cigarettes on June 1 and was arrested for breaking curfew, are rarely
allowed to be tested by the local magistrates, who have begun daily court
hearings in the capital.

Elizabeth Hodgkin, of Amnesty International, who has a bulging case file of
arrests, said: "I cannot believe the Americans are so stupid and insensitive
as to behave like this after all the trouble they have had over Guantanamo
Bay.  They must treat their detainees humanely and let them have visits from
family
and lawyers."

Amnesty claims that 80 minors have been detained, accused of petty offences
including writing anti-American graffiti or, in the case of two teenage
boys, climbing on the back of a US troop carrier to hitch a lift through a
main street in Baghdad.

One of the most disturbing incidents concerns Sufiyan Abd al-Ghani, 11, who
was with his uncle in a car that was stopped near his home in Hay al-Jihad
at just after 10 pm on May 27. The boy's father heard a commotion and rushed
outside to see him sprawled face down on the road with a rifle muzzle
pressed against his neck and US officers shouting that someone in the car
had shot at them.

Sufiyan was made to stay on the ground for three hours, while more than 100
soldiers poured into the neighbourhood, searching houses and cars.
Eventually he was taken away with his hands trussed behind his back and a
hood draped over his ead. No weapon had been found. The boy said that
soldiers dug rifle butts into his neck and back and that the first night he
was handcuffed and left alone in a tiny room open to the sky.

The following day he was moved to the airport, where he said for eight days
he shared a tent with 22 adults, sleeping on the dirt, with no water to wash
or change his clothes.

Sufiyan said that he was pulled from the tent one morning, hooded and
manacled again, and driven to Sarhiyeh prison, to be kept in a room with 20
other youths aged 15 or 16 - regarded as minors by the Geneva Convention.

A woman inmate took his name and details and when she was released she
alerted Sufiyan's family. On June 21, the family obtained an injunction from
a judge ordering the boy's release, but they were told at the prison that
the signature of an Iraqi judge no longer had legal authority. Even when an
American military
lawyer demanded his freedom, US troops refused to release him until the
lawyer appeared at the prison. Privately US military lawyers say that they
are appalled at how some of the arrests are being carried out.

At the gates of Abu Ghraib, frustration and anger force men such as Adnan
Akhjan, 38, a former civil servant, to shout abuse at the US guards.

Mr Akhjan, whose 58-year-old father was arrested three weeks ago for driving
a truck with no doors or headlights, said: "People are so sickened by what
is happening they talk of wanting Saddam to come back. How bad can the
Americans be
that in three months we want that monster back?"

US officials say that they are struggling to cope with the continuing
looting, as well as attacks on troops. They say that until the fledgling
Iraqi police force is fully operational and jails are repaired, they
represent the only law and order.

Each morning at the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad there is a silent line
of Iraqis queueing to find out where a relative might be. The American
authorities have said that they will not inform the Red Cross about
detainees until 21 days after they have been arrested. The International
Committe of the Red Cross has
been allowed to see some of the prisoners, but says that it cannot even
begin to guess at the numbers detained.

An Iraqi exile who had been in Baghdad for only three days after living in
Denmark for the past 27 years found himself caught up in an American swoop
after a shooting in a street market. Not realising that the man could read
English, his interrogator made no attempt to cover up his case file, which
described him
as "suspected assassin".

The man, who was held for more than 30 days, is afraid to give his name and
says that he is now considering leaving Baghdad for good.

Thank You Bill Mayhar for this article:


My research indicates that the courts are operation under secret rules of
slavery.  The court are pretending that everyone has voluntarily agreed to
voluntary slavery for the privilege of being a US citizen.  This places them
under Art 4, Sect 3, cls 2 of the fed constitution.

This is slavery.  People are not aware that slavery was only prohibited to
the republican states and not the fed gov, nor to any of its muni corps,
such as the State of Oregon.

Once one takes on citizenship in the United States, (it appears to be a fed
muni corp created after the civil war via the District of Columbia Organic
Act after the civil war for the re-enslavement of the Blacks) they become a
citizen of a 'thing' created by the Congress.

This gives the individual the legal standing of a 'thing' - hence, all legal
processes in America are now en rem (against a thing - that belongs to the
Congress) and things have only privileges.

US citizens are subject to total taxation without question or
representation.  (The national dept shall not be questioned) See
congressional enactment 14, aka the 14th amendment.  This means that a US
citizen (congressional property) and everything that they think that they
own, can be taken by any muni corp and disposed of any way that the muni
corp officers decide.

All the courts are not en rem courts - refer to the fed tax code - it admits
that all proceedings are en rem.

That is why the courts stand silent on issues of authority and jurisdiction.
They are federal 14th police powers courts collection on the national dept
and exercising Art 4, sect 3, cls 2 slave law authority.

Since the national debt shall not be questioned - US citizens do not have
the power to demand anything from the court.  The court is just a process to
appease the people so that the slaves don't rebel and demand their freedom.

An administrator from the State of Oregon Supreme Court told me last year
that justice is not at issue, only enforcement of the statutes and that the
only natural right left is the freedom to believe in whatever God one
wishes.

For those who would like to work with me to back the courts into a corner
and create a process to allow individuals to remove themselves from slavery,
I would like to work with you and share what I am doing.

Bill Mayhar - Oregon

Bill Mayhar can be contacted through us at this address.

Mayhar has recently filed Quo Warranto into the Oregon Supreme court asking
the questions relevant to  the issues stated above.   This Writ will soon be
on our website www.avoiceforchildren.com .  Thus far the court is a wall of
denial, refusing to answer any question or allow hearing, dismissing these
critical questions without hearing or opinion.  The court is using the same
"rules" to dismiss the petitions and complaints of the people as they
created to enforce the slave scheme as described above.   The people
circumvent this systemic block by coming into the court with courtwatchers,
accessing the record and forcing the default when the agents of the state do
not answer or appear.  Exactly as Mayhar has done in this case, asked the
relevant questions in a Quo Warranto filed into the court, served on the
relevant parties.
pamela gaston


----- Original Message -----
From: avoice@...
To: A Voice For Children ; AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: BAR ATTORNEYS DONT WANT PEOPLE TO EXCERCISE THEIR OWN INHERENT
AUTHORITY [AFRA_CenCom] Sui Juris


This attorney is intentionally misrepresenting what Sui Juris process is in
a court.  AND NOTE THAT HE OFFERS NO SOLUTIONS.  HE HAS NO INTENTION OF
DISSOLVING SYSTEMIC FRAUD.  HE KNOWS FULL WELL THAT IT IS, EVEN ADMITS IT,
YET LEAVES THE PEOPLE HOPELESS WHEN THE ANSWER IS THEIR OWN INHERENT
AUTHORITY.  THE BAR DOES NOT WANT THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

I want to make a point clear.  This attorney has stated before that Sui
Juris is "not the magic bullet"..... WE HAVE NEVER SAID IT WAS !!!!!  That
is so misrepresentive as to be totally innacurate.  This attorney would
leave people totallyl hopeless, just as we see repeated every day, usually
AFTER leading them on and taking all their money first before losing their
cases to the state corporate interest.  IF you read fully what we constantly
write about, there are only TWO things that move the 'court'.....

The "magic bullet " IS -

EXPOSURE AND LIABILITY......

Sui Juris is about getting the people INTO the court, where they ARE the
authority, and they MAKE THE RECORD - WHICH CREATES THE EXPOSURE AND
LIABILITY..... and another part is the courtwatchers watching.....

the ANSWERS are NOT going to come from the same BAR controllers that have
created this corporate system, Justice 2020 Courts of Arbitration and
Mediation....

WHY doesn't this attorney or any others tell the TRUTH and ADMIT to the
people that this is NOT a constitutional system in place right now.....
there are whole websites on the Justice 2020 - it is no secret, but these
attorneys wont go there to the people....they keep acting like there is a
constitutional structure in there, all the acting and spinning, keeping the
people hopeless as this man is doing.....

THERE IS AN ANSWER AND IT IS THE PEOPLE BEING HEARD.  THAT IS ALL THIS IS
ABOUT.  NO ONE MAKES ANY JUDGE DO ANYTHING..... HE NEEDS TO LEARN WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE MAKING THESE KINDS OF ASSUMPTIONS.... ASSUME MEANS
TO PRETEND.....

He is right that judges and attorneys and public officials are tyrants,
without restriction, arrogant, criminal in their agressions on the people.
The FACT is that the VOICE  OF THE PEOPLE IS THE AUTHORITY and the only way
that voice is heard where it matters is IN a public assembly, ON a public
record, IN a sworn forum where the people can set up a default and catch
them in their lies.

This is not an idea, but in fact has shattered the Oregon FRAUD system by
the people going into the courts Sui Juris with their paperwork stating
FACTS that no attorney will state on the Record.

We have watched these processes for so long now that these are not
assumptions about how the BAR judges and attorneys behave, it is ESTABLISHED
far too much to deny.  Sui Juris is simply the peoples voice being heard.

IT IS THE SOLUTION.

What is YOUR solution - to continue to protect the system?  That is the only
voice we hear out there is BAR members telling the people not to listen to
what Sui Juris is all about......  funny that they dont want the people to
be empowered.....

I have asked this particular attorney at least twice to tell me when he has
prosecuted any one who has abused a family in court..... when has he brought
forth remedy for any family?  Restitution?  (NOT fraud settlements with
sealed orders, no admissions of guilt by state criminals, etc.... the normal
attorney "setlement" that protects the criminals to continue in their
systemic fraud.)

ANYONE at this point who is protecting the unconstitutional system corporate
fraud  that is in place is NOT about the People restoring Original
Jurisdiction.
EVERY time there is discrediting attempts against Sui Juris it is ALWAYS a
BAR member.  EVERY TIME it is people who are acting like they are advocates
while in REALITY they are acting always to protect the corporate system
which they want to be part of.....  Sui Juris cuts through all the BS, and
those that want to protect the system are participating in the treason
because it  is SYSTEMIC......

Until the people REESTABLISH the judicial due process we have no remedy.
Without remedy there are no rights.  People such as this attorney would
leave the peple hopeless, thinking they have to hire a state prostitute to
"represent" them, when there is NO AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN HUMAN INHERENT
RIGHTS.

People need to learn all they can and not believe anyone becuase they are
told to think one way or another.  This attorney does not even realize at
all the incredible power of Sui Juris litigants in the courts.  It IS
shattering the systemic Fraud.

Watch his response - he will not admit the Justice 2020 exists, he will not
name one fact when he confronted a corrupt caseworker, prosecutor or judge
to have them prosecuted for criminal abuse against families he is
defending....

We see it ALL the time, without exception.
Time to people in offices of trust and discretion to admit what is really
going on or be seen for what they are, liars and a theives.

We STAND on every word we say, ALL of which is ALREADY SEVEN YEARS OF
UNDISPUTED SUI JURIS COURT RECORDS that has saved our lives and been our
jury confrimed affirmative defense.  When has an attorney done that for
anyone????? We WON our RICO Complaint the BAR judges and attorneys are
GUILTY of racketeering and conspiracy in l998 in Marion County....WHEN has
any attorney done that for anyone ????

There is NOTHING more powerful than what Sui Juris means.

pamela gaston




-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory A. Hession <hession@...>
To: Art_N@... <Art_N@...>; jhwilson@...
<jhwilson@...>; claude11@... <claude11@...>;
AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com <AFRA_CenCom@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:32 AM
Subject: [AFRA_CenCom] Sui Juris


Dear all:

         Pamela states below that:

         "The reason they deny the people is that they only acknowledge
'representatives" in these quasi judicial administrative proceedings . . .
."

         That is NOT true.  They deny the people because they are tyrants,
who care not a whit for the constitution, the rule of law, decency, or
truth.  They are not encumbered by technicalities such as sui juris, never
mind the much more significant realities such as due process or the Bill or
Rights.  They do what they want, not because of the failure of someone to
invoke the arcane doctrine of "in propria persona", but because they are
power mad and committed to an agenda.  Making a judge aware of that minor
technicality does not suddenly make the judge wake from his unconstitutional
swoon, forswear his tyranny, his power and money grubbing ways, his
political agenda, and start doing justice.  That is naive in the extreme,
because it points to the wrong cause and solution to the problem.

         If they won't even rule for justice when shown the plain text of the
law or the constitution, they surely will not comply with basic issues of
justice when confronted with the doctrine of sui juris, a peanut in the land
of judicial elephantine tyranny.

         The problem is so vast and multifaceted that no facile answer like
sui juris would begin to address or solve it.  To give but a few  examples:
1) bad judges are appointed by corrupt politicians who take bribes to
appoint them.  2) There is no accountability for judges.  3) They have
immunity.  4) Most have a statist political agenda.  5) Legislatures won't
rein in their jurisdiction.  6) Interest groups get horrid laws passed.   7)
Administrative agencies function like courts, ruining the system.  Etc.
These are some, and just a few ,of the real problems, and sui juris doesn't
impact them.

         Please, enough already with this sui juris stuff.  It is not a magic
bullet.  Let's work toward dealing with some of the root causes of
injustice, each as they are able.  It is a target rich environment, and we
need to go after the REAL problems, not some flea of a technicality that
does not strike at the heart of their evil schemes.

Gregory A. Hession J.D.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original Response from A Voice For Children:

  Sui Juris is the term for real excercising of fully empowered Inherent
Rights, Sovereign in a courtroom.  It is a STATUS, a STANDING in the
American courts..... there is "represented status" there is "pro se status"
and there is "sui juris status" also called "in propria persona status"....
they are all DIFFERENT.

The last trial we were in last year, at the end the DA scratched out "pro
se" on the judgement and wrote in "Sui Juris".  We have claimed this
original jurisdiction since l997 here in Oregon in the Courts, also Ex Rel,
""in relation to" the other aggreived people in the state, acknowledged by
the courts at all levels.   The reason they deny the people is that they
only acknowledge 'representatives" in these quasi judicial administrative
proceedings (their title).  These are NOT courts, and it is up to the Sui
Juris, or In Propria Persona litigant to ESTABLISH Original Jurisdiction by
making the human claim on the Record... the REAL human standing there, NOT
representative humans.

This feeds into the way people do NOT understand the deceptions are all in
the process and they do things like allow representatives to have rights and
fiction corporations to make claims, states being the same corporations.....
no humans there !!!  only money !!!  In Oregon the state writes claims  in
courts  with "money" as the defendants and fiction "state dept." as
palintiff.....

Sui Juris forces all this nonsense to end and the REAL HUMAN has to appear
and answer, as the Bill of Rights DEMANDS.

The difference is like night and day.  And the joke is on you if you dont
know the difference in court.  They manipulate everyone if you dont know
your rights and "pro se"  means literally "represents yourself".....  it is
another "represented /limited jurisdiction/waivered rights" status.... you
CANNOT REPRESENT YOURSELF...... you ARE yourself IF YOU ARE STANDING
CLAIMING INHERENT RIGHTS.

And no attorney can claim Inherent Rights, there is caselaw even that
supports that one.  So with attorneys on both sides in a case, there are NO
human rights going on at all !!!  only a changing group of paid attorners
all working for the system, no law at all.

The CONCEPT of Sui Juris is simple, the people accessing the courts as
sovereigns, not as people think the authority is a judge or attorney.  The
PEOPLE making a RECORD, which then builds their defense and shatters the
lies when the authorities are caught on the record exposed.  IN the
courtroom is where it is all taken from us, there is where we the People
take it back.

It is the most critical information that anyone can learn, the difference.
It is about Inherent Rights vs "legal rights", fully empowered humans and
Familiy Body's  or  slaves in a corporate scheme.

pamela gaston, a voice for children

-

 Sui Juris is the term for real excercising of fully empowered Inherent Rights, Sovereign in a courtroom.  It is a STATUS, a STANDING in the American courts..... there is "represented status" there is "pro se status" and there is "sui juris status" also called "in propria persona status".... they are all DIFFERENT.

The last trial we were in last year, at the end the DA scratched out "pro se" on the judgement and wrote in "Sui Juris".  We have claimed this original jurisdiction since l997 here in Oregon in the Courts, also Ex Rel, ""in relation to" the other aggreived people in the state, acknowledged by the courts at all levels.   The reason they deny the people is that they only acknowledge 'representatives" in these quasi judicial administrative proceedings (their title).  These are NOT courts, and it is up to the Sui Juris, or In Propria Persona litigant to ESTABLISH Original Jurisdiction by making the human claim on the Record... the REAL human standing there, NOT representative humans.

This feeds into the way people do NOT understand the deceptions are all in the process and they do things like allow representatives to have rights and fiction corporations to make claims, states being the same corporations.....  no humans there !!!  only money !!!  In Oregon the state writes claims  in courts  with "money" as the defendants and fiction "state dept." as palintiff.....

Sui Juris forces all this nonsense to end and the REAL HUMAN has to appear and answer, as the Bill of Rights DEMANDS.

The difference is like night and day.  And the joke is on you if you dont know the difference in court.  They manipulate everyone if you dont know your rights and "pro se"  means literally "represents yourself".....  it is another "represented /limited jurisdiction/waivered rights" status.... you CANNOT REPRESENT YOURSELF...... you ARE yourself IF YOU ARE STANDING CLAIMING INHERENT RIGHTS.

And no attorney can claim Inherent Rights, there is caselaw even that supports that one.  So with attorneys on both sides in a case, there are NO human rights going on at all !!!  only a changing group of paid attorners all working for the system, no law at all.

The CONCEPT of Sui Juris is simple, the people accessing the courts as sovereigns, not as people think the authority is a judge or attorney.  The PEOPLE making a RECORD, which then builds their defense and shatters the lies when the authorities are caught on the record exposed.  IN the courtroom is where it is all taken from us, there is where we the People take it back.

It is the most critical information that anyone can learn, the difference.  It is about Inherent Rights vs "legal rights", fully empowered humans and Familiy Body's  or  slaves in a corporate scheme.

pamela gaston, a voice for children

-----Original Message-----
From: John Wilson <jhwilson@...>
To: Claude Memma <claude11@...>; Art Northrup, Jr. <Art_N@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: To John Wilson re: Sui Juris.

Dear Art,

From the Collins Paperback Latin Dictionary:-
sui gen of se
se  pron himself; herself; itself; themselves; one another.
j  see i
iuris nt law,  right; justice;  law court;  jurisdiction;  authority.

Which is a bit more than the Oxford Reference A Dictionary of Law saying:-
sui juris [Latin: of his own right]. Describing the status of a person who is of full age and capacity. Compare alient juris.

I think I prefer the original Latin.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.


----- Original Message -----

From: Art Northrup, Jr.
To: John Wilson ; Claude Memma
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: To John Wilson

> ...Sui Juris simply means that sovereignty is in the hands of the people.

No, it does not mean any such thing & people put a lot more on that simple term than is there.  It simply means that you are not under the guardianship of another & that you are capable of handling your own affirs.

From "Black's Law Dictionary", 6th Ed., p. 1434:

"Sui juris.  Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship.  Having capacity to manage one's own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one's self.  See: Emancipation; Majority.  Compare Non sui juris."

There is a group in the States which seems to attach some magical power to the term "sui juris" which simply does not exist.  It appears to me they are trying to make money by selling some grand scheme based on a simple Latin term.

- Art



----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Claude Memma
Sent: Tuesday, 08 July 2003 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: To John Wilson

Dear Claude,

This is the 2nd attempt to answer you. At the first attempt, my computer stopped working and I had to press the "Reset" button.
Sui Juris simply means that sovereignty is in the hands of the people.
Judges don't like this and want absolute power for themselves (to conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery, etc.,). That's why they don't acknowledge it.
If you didn't get a jury in the Family "Court", it was not a Court.
A Court is a place where Justice is administered.
Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs.
Your most important right is the right to a jury.
You have the power of one - sui juris.
Go back and demand a fully informed jury.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.

ANOTHER SHOCKER FROM THE COURT
WorldNetDaily News


We agree with WorldNet Daily that the TRAITORS in the chairs of our lawful
judiciary have to be REMOVED.

It is TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO CITIZENS ARREST THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES
Dissolve the BAR, all unconstitutional quasi-judicial administrative courts

US Supreme Court is already releasing 160,000 pedophiles just in California,
intervening to protect corporate interest priests, judges, pedophiles in
high offices of public trust .... so far just the tip of the iceberg has
come out....

The corporate interest through the courts is so desperate to prevent the
HUGE and fatal exposure that is happening, that they are willing to be so
blatant as to protect pedophiles and child abusers openly in the court this
way.  It is EXTREME CONTEMPT for the People.  They are FOREIGN OCCUPIERS to
our lawful constitutional Republics and Trespassing on our Constutions - the
DEFINITION of Traitors.  This is SO DANGEROUS and this defacto corporation
has placed every American at EXTREME RISK as there is NO lawful government
in place or constutional process at all right now.

It is unconscionable, and they are not telling the public WHY they are doing
this, to protect the corporate interest, which IS the "court" which IS their
own revenue machine, and through the courts and offices  they all share the
plunder.

It IS systemic treason, it IS by design, and it IS  time to excercise the
right of CITIZENS ARREST to remove the usurpers setting in our lawful
offices of public trust.  Dissolve the BAR monopoly and stranglehold on the
people through the corrupted courts.  The "US Supreme Court is NOT a
constitutional jurisdiction, the "judges" are administrative law officers
for the Justice 2020 Courts of Arbitration and Mediation.

They ALLOW them selves to act in trespass to the constitution, ALWAYS acting
in the corporate interest.  Just as the church and state businesses are
exposed as criminal operations and henious criminals are brought to light
the "court" blatantly  intervenes to protect "their interests".  We have
seen it at state level, then federal, now openly proctecting the corporate
interest and liability right out in the open as the people are knowing and
watching.  They dont know what else to do, now they are discredited to the
core as liars and pedophiles, criminals, theives and traitors.

Our whole freedom and sovereignty is on the line if this continues.  The
People have to ACT now, form a peoples jury, look at the evidence on the
record in a public assembly and ARREST THESE TRAITORS AND BRING THEM INTO
THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY AND FORCE THEM TO ANSWER FACTUALLY FOR THEIR ACTS as all
humans are accountable before God.

Child abusers and those who exploit the vulnerable for selfish gain and
perverted ambitions are going to receive their "just reward" when the people
start holding them PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE.

TIME TO GET REAL.... CHILD ABUSE IS A CRIME.... TREASON IS A CAPITOL
OFFENSE.... TO TO PROSECUTE CRIMINALS IN OFFICES OF TRUST IN  AMERICA NOW
....

WE ARE BEING BETRAYED AND PLUNDERED AS NEVER BEFORE RIGHT NOW, STATES RIGHTS
HANGING IN THE BALANCE.....  WE ARE THE AUTHORITY TO SET IT RIGHT....

THE PEOPLE ARE THE INHERENT AUTHORITY WHOSE RIGHT, DUTY, OBLIGATION,
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ALTER ABOLISH OR AMEND  UNJUST GOVERNMENT .....
pamela gaston

http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33380
                   Another shocker from court

                   Posted: July 2, 2003
                   1:00 a.m. Eastern

                   © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

                   Just as the nation was recovering from
                   stunning, back-to-back Supreme Court rulings
                   invalidating the right to equal protection in
                   affirmative-action cases and then striking down
                   state anti-sodomy laws, the political activists in
                   black robes freed hundreds of confessed and
                   convicted child molesters in California.

                   Prosecutors in the Golden State spent last
                   weekend scrambling to figure out a response
                   to last Thursday's 5-4 decision that California
                   had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post
                   facto – after the fact – laws when the
                   Legislature changed the time limit for bringing
                   criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases to
                   cover older cases.

                   As a result, hundreds of molesters have been
                   or will be released from jails and prisons
                   across the state. The cases all involve not just
                   allegations of abuse, but strong corroborating
                   evidence, which was required under the 1994
                   law struck down by the high court.

                   What gives?

                   If I didn't know better, I would think this court
                   is trying to prove something. I am beginning to
                   suspect the majority on the court is actively
                   taunting the American people. It seems this
                   out-of-control, renegade court is sticking its
                   thumb in the eye of the people and daring us
                   to act against this unaccountable ruling elite.

                   Americans need to understand the Supreme
                   Court does not have unlimited authority to
                   strike down laws it doesn't like. Americans
                   need to understand the Supreme Court is
                   exceeding its constitutional authority.
                   Americans need to prepare a response.

                   What can be done?

                   Most people believe nothing can be done.

                   It's not true.

                   The remarkable U.S. Constitution always
                   provides checks and balances. All serving
                   federal officials are subject to impeachment
                   proceedings – even U.S. Supreme Court
                   justices.

                   It's time to put some heat on those abusing
                   their power – and let's name names: Stephen G.
                   Breyer authored this latest outrage. It, like the
                   decisions about sodomy and racial preferences,
                   was supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
                   Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and
                   John Paul Stevens.

                   These people have to go.

                   There are many in Congress who insist that any
                   new Supreme Court vacancy be filled by
                   someone who thinks like the majority,
                   someone who will legislate from the bench,
                   someone who doesn't respect the Constitution
                   and its limits on federal power. It's time to
                   challenge the authority of the majority with an
                   impeachment movement.

                   I know. I know. Such a movement has not a
                   snowball's chance in Miami of being successful
                   in the short term. That's OK. Great movements
                   are never without challenges and great
                   difficulty. But we need to start a brushfire. We
                   need to give the American people something to
                   believe in. We need to restore hope that
                   America can be returned to the rule of law and
                   away from the rule of men.

                   I remember a movement back in the 1980s in
                   California. No one thought it could succeed. It
                   was an effort to recall the state's chief justice of
                   the Supreme Court, Rose Bird, who overturned
                   every single death-penalty case brought before
                   her. It took lots of hard work, but it did
                   succeed.

                   Likewise, very few people would have given
                   much credence to the movement to recall
                   California Gov. Gray Davis just a few months
                   ago. Today, it looks like an inevitability.

                   It's true no U.S. Supreme Court justice has ever
                   been impeached. For that reason, alone, these
                   high priests in black robes have become way
                   too comfortable in their perches. They need to
                   feel some heat. They need to be shown this is
                   still America – a country where the people
                   rule, not the elite.

                   Are you with me?

                   Let's get started. Let's find a handful of
                   courageous members of the House of
                   Representatives who will start the ball rolling.
                   Let's begin talking about this idea on radio talk
                   shows. Let's start writing those letters to the
                   editor. Let's mobilize. Let's roll. Let's take
                   America back.



                   Editor's note: The upcoming August issue of
                   WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine will be
                   on America's out-of-control judicial system, focusing
                   in particular on the United States Supreme Court,
                   whose recent rulings have validated reverse
                   discrimination, opened the door for legalized
                   polygamy, incest and bestiality, and freed hundreds
                   of sex abusers. The current issue (July), titled "THE
                   CONSTITUTION: America's ultimate
                   battleground," explores whether the Constitution is
                   still America's "supreme law of the land."

                   Subscribe to Whistleblower, starting with "THE
                   CONSTITUTION: America's ultimate
                   battleground."

Please go to http://www.avoiceforchildren.com/cases/usa_vs_oregon/index.html

and read the background on the "rules changes" that were made well prior to
911 event.  We started to see the fed takeover of the states and the
complete fraud in the process back in l997.  As of 2000, we went in to the
Oregon Supreme Court (Videotape of that hearing is on Newswire on our site
www.avoiceforchildren.com .)

The administration had no choice but to act in Public as they have attempted
to rationalize their criminal acts or somehow make their crimes appear to be
legal.... all in the language.....

It is completely intentional, now lies are called "legal" if you are a BAR
member or one of their associates or investigators (in China they call the
people spies "investigators" - just like the recent SARS scheme....)

Oregon Congressman Ron Wyden is a traitor and a criminal directly wrote
these bills, while preening in Public about protecting their rights....

Please spread this information.  We watched the Oregonian cover large parts
of our research at the time, information they got from us without
acknlwledging it (that's ok.... but seeing this information out there was
the important thing)

this kind of manipulation is obscene and the Good Lord placed us in the
Oregon Courts with criminal evidence against systemic fraud, black market
child selling and pornography, sexual abuse, being operated in the child
services and covered up in the courts.... we have a jury verdict from l998
that they are guilty, still nothing but protection to the point of these
kinds of bills....

In the USA vs Oregon BAR it said it was "essential" that Oregon be brought
on board into the new provisional government.

The current governor Kulongoski said "Oregonians are not going to do this
willingly".....

we are doing all we can to stop it.....

pamela gaston
a voice for children

-----Original Message-----
From: John Wilson <jhwilson@...>
To: Claude Memma <claude11@...>; Art Northrup, Jr. <Art_N@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: To John Wilson re: Sui Juris.

Dear Art,

 

From the Collins Paperback Latin Dictionary:-

sui gen of se

se  pron himself; herself; itself; themselves; one another.

j  see i

iuris nt law,  right; justice;  law court;  jurisdiction;  authority.

 

Which is a bit more than the Oxford Reference A Dictionary of Law saying:-

sui juris [Latin: of his own right]. Describing the status of a person who is of full age and capacity. Compare alient juris.

 

I think I prefer the original Latin.

 

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Art Northrup, Jr.

To: John Wilson ; Claude Memma

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:40 AM

Subject: Re: To John Wilson

> ...Sui Juris simply means that sovereignty is in the hands of the people.

 

No, it does not mean any such thing & people put a lot more on that simple term than is there.  It simply means that you are not under the guardianship of another & that you are capable of handling your own affirs.

 

From "Black's Law Dictionary", 6th Ed., p. 1434:

 

"Sui juris.  Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship.  Having capacity to manage one's own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one's self.  See: Emancipation; Majority.  Compare Non sui juris." 

 

There is a group in the States which seems to attach some magical power to the term "sui juris" which simply does not exist.  It appears to me they are trying to make money by selling some grand scheme based on a simple Latin term.

 

- Art 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: John Wilson

To: Claude Memma

Sent: Tuesday, 08 July 2003 7:09 PM

Subject: Re: To John Wilson

Dear Claude,

 

This is the 2nd attempt to answer you. At the first attempt, my computer stopped working and I had to press the "Reset" button.

Sui Juris simply means that sovereignty is in the hands of the people.

Judges don't like this and want absolute power for themselves (to conceal their own incompetence, corruption and treachery, etc.,). That's why they don't acknowledge it.

If you didn't get a jury in the Family "Court", it was not a Court.

A Court is a place where Justice is administered.

Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs.

Your most important right is the right to a jury.

You have the power of one - sui juris.

Go back and demand a fully informed jury.

 

Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Claude Memma

To: jhwilson@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:27 PM

Subject: To John Wilson

This is a very interesting site, it is I think "ahead of it's time" for Australia as most of the common people are too busy eating McDonald's and watching Fox-Tel to realize that their basic constitutional rights are being eroded in the most "sneaky" ways imaginable. Yes, mainly by the judiciary. Are you aware of the concept of Sui Juris? This argument is bringing awareness to the people of the USA about how their "constitutional rights" are being denied. I congratulate you for commencing at least something of a small fire which may one day ignite the country into a new fight to restore the constitutional rights no questions asked.

 

How did these deceptions come to my attention? I found it hard to believe that innocent citizens were ending up in Jail at the mere "allegation" of child abuse. I am myself a current victim of false allegations as a result of divorce proceedings but no outcome has yet been determined. I nevertheless have not seen my 2 children for almost 6 months even though there has been no evidence produced of any abuse. Amazing? Isn't it? I later found that this whole child protection thing is a very profitable business for judges, agencies and all affiliated with the movement. Of course in the United States they have almost reached the point of pure "police states" - but take heart - the movements have begun with some citizens officially setting up "militia" designed to bring forth the 2nd American Revolution.

 

I think it is amazing that every one is "asleep" about these issues - but then again, we are bombarded with so many distractions these days and who would have believed that such illegalities and corruption could possibly have existed in the year 2003?  I was absolutely flabergasted!! I am still having to pinch myself - it is time to wake up and reclaim our unalienable consitutional rights.  

 

Your web site makes a good start.

 

Regards

Claude Memma

Adelaide, South Australia     

 

 

Regards    

 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/5/03