Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: shall cease to be a citizen of the United States

Expand Messages
  • Bernie Besherse
    Re: shall cease to be a citizen of the United States Hello Jerry, and others, You said Today an attorney is a sworn officer of the court, and by his own
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 15, 2010
      Re: shall cease to be a citizen of the United States Hello Jerry, and others,
             You said "Today an attorney is a sworn officer of the court, and by his own admission, as that officer, his duty is to impose the will of the state against the citizen."

        Article 6, clauses 1 and 2 of the constitution, incorporating by reference Article 4 of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 into the Supreme Law of the Land, appears to me to MANDATE that the courts impose the will of the creditors against the citizens of the United States.

        According to the above cited Supreme Law of the Land, there can be no law that prevents the full collection of every debt, in pounds sterling.  This is "organic" constitutional law, and cannot be repealed, repudiated, or laid aside.

        Please read and understand this excerpt out of a recent supreme Court case that discusses the thirteenth amendment.  Their logic is pretty hard to refute.

      AFROYIM v. RUSK
      U.S. Supreme Court
      AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
      387 U.S. 253
      AFROYIM v. RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE
      CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
      No. 456
      Argued February 20, 1967
      Decided May 29, 1967

      "First we reject the idea expressed in Perez that, aside from the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent.  This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations.  Other nations are governed by their own constitutions, if any, and we can draw no support from theirs.  In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.  Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.  The Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power.  And even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, views were expressed in Congress and by this Court that under the Constitution the Government was granted no power, even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization, to determine what conduct should and should not result in the loss of citizenship.  On three occasions, in 1794, 1797, and 1818, Congress considered and rejected proposals to enact laws which would describe certain conduct as resulting in expatriation.  8 On each occasion [387 U.S. 253, 258] Congress was considering bills that were concerned with recognizing the right of voluntary expatriation and with providing some means of exercising that right.  In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adhered to the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and doubted whether a citizen could even voluntarily renounce his citizenship.  9 By 1818, however, almost no one doubted the existence of the right of voluntary expatriation, but several judicial decisions had indicated that the right could not be exercised by the citizen without the consent of the Federal Government in the form of enabling legislation.  10 Therefore, a bill was introduced to provide that a person could voluntarily relinquish his citizenship by declaring such relinquishment in writing before a district court and then departing from the country.  11 The opponents of the bill argued that Congress had no constitutional authority, either express or implied, under either the Naturalization Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, to provide that a certain act would constitute expatriation.  12 They pointed to a proposed Thirteenth [387 U.S. 253, 259] Amendment, subsequently not ratified, which would have provided that a person would lose his citizenship by accepting an office or emolument from a foreign government. ... ... ..." 

        The proposed 13th amendment, even though I believe that it was correctly ratified by the states and was published in both state and federal publications as late as 1839 (at least in Illinois), as being lawfully ratified, was a bad idea from the start, the right of the government to revoke citizenship not being one of the 23 powers designated in the constitution.  Besides, there already was an effective remedy in place, -- the remedy for treason.

        Even so, the Thirteenth Amendment cannot be enforced as valid law by the courts, because it would then form a "lawful impediment to the collection of debts" due to "His Magesty's Royal Banker in Paris."  As we know from reading the Supreme Law of the Land as cited in paragraphs 2 & 3 above, that such a thing can never be.
      Shalom,
       Bernie  
                              mailto:founder@...

       
       

      Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 12:49:34 PM, you wrote:


      Shall cease to be a citizen of the United States
       Maybe there will be a day when the people awaken and see B.A.R attorney's are not Citizens of these United States and it don,t matter were there born. That the people and their lawful law enforcement officials have a obligation and duty to remove all B.A.R attorney's that are government offices including the judges all the way up to the United States Supreme Court so a Constitutional compliant Government for the people by the people may return to the United States of America. Or simpler solution possible banning the B.A.R ASS, in these United States.
       This statement is evidenced by the following facts. Jerry James Stanton

    • Patrick McKEE
      Article 4 of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 states the following: It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 16, 2010

        Article 4 of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 states the following:

         

        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.

         

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris.asp

         

        Heretofore MEANS "up to this time".

         

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretofore

         

        So Bernie wants people to "believe" that we are “somehow” STILL paying for "debts" that were contracted for prior to September 3, 1783?

         

        And are we SUPPOSED to totally IGNORE the FACT that the operation of a TREATY can NOT LEGALLY OVERRULE the CONSTITUTION as well?

         

        “The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that 'this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.'

         

        It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument. [78 U.S. 616, 621]   This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our government.”

         

        THE CHEROKEE TOBACCO, 78 U.S. 616, 621 (1870)

         

        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/78/616.html

         

        Patrick in California

         

        Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

         

        "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

         

        Bernie Besherse said:

         

        Article 6, clauses 1 and 2 of the constitution, incorporating by reference Article 4 of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 into the Supreme Law of the Land, appears to me to MANDATE that the courts impose the will of the creditors against the citizens of the United States .

          According to the above cited Supreme Law of the Land, there can be no law that prevents the full collection of every debt, in pounds sterling.  This is "organic" constitutional law, and cannot be repealed, repudiated, or laid aside.

      • Jake
        Regarding Patrick s comments about the Treaty of Peace, which officially ended the Revolutionary War in September 1783, and about the U.S. Constitution, I see
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 17, 2010

          Regarding Patrick's comments about the Treaty of Peace, which officially ended the Revolutionary War in September 1783, and about the U.S. Constitution, I see the need to make a point:


             > And are we SUPPOSED to totally IGNORE the FACT that the operation of a TREATY can NOT LEGALLY OVERRULE the CONSTITUTION as well?


             > The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that 'this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.


          OK - but - the Constitution wasn't signed until 1787, wasn't ratified until 1789, the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until 1791 & the end of 1791 is generally accepted as the time that the Constitution including the Bill of Rights actually came into effect.  That was over 8 years after the peace treaty was signed (in Paris, France), so that treaty could not possibly be "made in pursuance of" the Constitution, which didn't even exist @ the time.  In other words, the treaty was binding BEFORE the Constitution was ever written, let alone adopted.


          And notice a very important part of Article I, Section 10:  


             No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts.


          See also, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) - a U.S. supreme court case which held (in part) that:


             The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution.
              An act of the State Legislature of New Hampshire altering the charter without the consent of the corporation in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void.


          Now I am not making the "We are still Brits" argument, but part of the "deal" which ended the Revolutionary War & is incorporated into the Constitution was that contracts & debts which existed before the War were still valid, British subjects who owned property in the U.S. got to keep it, etc.  


          I very seriously doubt that anyone can come up with a valid claim for "pounds sterling" owed on a debt from well over 200 years ago, or that a British subject owns land in the U.S. that hasn't been documented with a "chain of custody" since the U.S. came into existence as a nation, but technically, the possibility exists.


          On a related note, I looked into a situation for a lady several years ago who couldn't afford to fight the battle to get her house back, but I certainly believe she had a case.  She'd lost the house to her ex-husband in a very nasty divorce (he could afford a better lawyer than she could), but the house was left to her by her grandmother, who helped build it with her grandfather - and I don't mean they hired a contractor - they & other family members built it themselves in the 1920's.  On land her grandparents bought from other family members & paid for in full with gold & silver, has NEVER had a mortgage on it & the chain of custody is documented back to BEFORE the Revolutionary War.


          So her claim was pretty simple - my grandmother left me this house in her (uncontested) Will & the (uncontested) documented chain of custody of the land goes back about 250 years - that should be my house / land, not my ex-husband's.  I don't know if her divorce attny. brought all that up, but if he didn't he sure should have.  I didn't get a transcript of the divorce proceedings, I just looked into the property ownership / chain of custody issue - which is an "open and shut" case in my book.


          And I'll add that in the area where I live there are roads & little towns named for families who settled here in the 1740's & some of their direct descendants still live here.  Want to claim a debt their ancestors owe in "pounds sterling", or that the land that's been in their family for over 250 years actually belongs to someone else?  I don't think you'd get very far with claims like that!!  And I've never heard of anybody trying to make one.


          ~ ~ ~


          --- On
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.