RESIDENCE CORRECTIVE NOTICE GOV AS TRUSTEE NOT BENEFICIARY

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1282155418

INDEX

 

01 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE

02 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

03a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS

03b SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION

04a REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

04b RELEASE OF POWER OF PROPERTY

05 POWERS OF ATTORNEY

COVER LETTER I

COVER LETTER II

EXHIBIT A – COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE

EXHIBIT A2 – COPY OF BACK OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE

EXHIBIT B – PHOTO COPY OF SS CARD, DRIVER LICENSE

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

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

EXHIBIT E – TRUST RECEIPTS, 89 CJS

EXHIBIT F – DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER

EXHIBIT G – PARSON

EXHIBIT H – TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT I – LETTER ROGATORY

EXHIBIT J – DIPLOMATIC PROTEST

EXHIBIT K – INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES

EXHIBIT L – DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF VALUE

EXHIBIT M – INLAND EMPIRE UNDER MOYTOY

EXHIBIT N – FIRST CORPORATE DIPLOMATIC PROTEST

EXHIBIT O – CHRISTIAN APPELLATION

EXHIBIT P – UCC 1 SHOWING LIEN CREDITOR

EXHIBIT Q1 – BENEFICIARY TO THE ORIGINAL TRUST

EXHIBIT Q2 – GOVERNMENT IS TRUSTEE, NOT BENEFICIARY

EXHIBIT R – CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK

EXHIBIT S – CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP

EXHIBIT T – NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT

EXHIBIT U – NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION/REPATRIATION

EXHIBIT V – GRANTOR INJURED BEYOND DAMAGE RECOVERY

EXHIBIT W – CLAIM OF POSTLIMINY

EXHIBIT X – DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE

EXHIBIT Y – GRANTOR NOT A FRANCHISE

EXHIBIT Z – DIVERSION ORDER, STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

 

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

  EXHIBIT Y – Grantor NOT a Franchise

 

 

Grantor explicitly denies being a Franchise, or any part of a franchise, for the benefit of any

corporate function, action, body, government, or other “entitlement” outside of Grantor’s own

autonomous Free Inhabitancy, therefore, not subject to any fiction of law or corporation, to wit:

 

In PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)

36 U.S. 420 (Pet.) we find that "...where there is a capacity to take and hold; the only thing

wanting is the franchise of succession, so that the property of the society may pass to successors

instead of heirs. Termes de la Ley 123; 1 Bl. Com. 368-72. This and other franchises are the

ligaments which unite a body of men into one, and knit them together as a natural person (4

Co. 65 a); creating a corporation, an invisible incorporeal being, a metaphysical person (2 Pet.

223); existing only in contemplation of law , but having the properties of individuality ..."

Then we find that, "It is the object and effect of the incorporation, to give to the artificial person

the same capacity and rights as a natural person can have ..." and, "...they can take and enjoy

property to the extent of their franchises as fully as an individual..."

Please note near the beginning in bold "...where there is a capacity to take and hold;..." is a

stipulation that only applies to the ability to "take and hold [TITLE]". Claimant has no record or

evidence that any corporation has a "Right of Soil", except the State Republic chartered. And,

remember, the People, not “persons,” are the State.

Now we have discovered that a Corporation is a person, yes, even a natural person. Every

"person", or those administering for said "person" outside their corporate "body " has the

responsibility of acting and reacting within the parameters of "Common Law", which governs the

natural Man. It is understood that all "persons" are governed by statutes, codes, rules, and

regulations, but the obligations for corporate, privileged "persons" cannot be enforced upon any

Private Man. Wrongful actions by any corporate entity that bring upon Private Man injury shall be

recompensed with remedy under Common Law.

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

Under USC Title 42 §1986. Action for neglect to prevent …, it states: “Every person who, having

knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or aid in

preventing … Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured…”

 

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

   DIVERSION ORDER

STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

 Date: __________________________

 

To: _______________________________ (name of carrier)

__________________________________

__________________________________ (address)

 

 

RECONSIGNMENT OR DIVERSION ORDER

Straight Bill of Lading

 

Dated: _____________________________

Number: ____________________________

Consignor: __________________________

Consigned to: ________________________

 

The undersigned consignor under your straight bill of lading number _____________, dated

__________ (month &day) _______ (year), issued by you to __________, of

________________ (address), __________ (city), ___________ (county), ___________

(state), covering goods described in the bill of lading as ____________, hereby instructs you to

disregard the original instructions as to place of delivery and recipient on the bill and to divert

and deliver the goods to __________, of _______________________ (address), __________

(city), _________ (county), _________ (state), at _________ (location).

 

The undersigned will pay all reasonable costs and charges of this diversion on your reasonable

request, and warrants its authority to effect this diversion or reconsignment. The undersigned

shall indemnify and hold you harmless for any loss, damage, or expenses in the event the

diversion or reconsignment is challenged.

 

____________________________________________

(Name of consignor)

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

 

EXHIBIT X – Demand for Full Disclosure

 

Claimant/Grantor does herein order all de facto agencies of the UNITED STATES government

and all related and subordinate agencies to disclose the True and Complete Facts and Details of

all monetary, currency, and negotiable instrument investments pertaining to the accounts of

Grantor that are being, or have been, withheld from ready access by Grantor to be released

immediately to Grantor, and avoid Fraud and Deception, as per:

 

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

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

 

“Where one under duty of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar

reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make fully and truthful disclosure of all

material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment.”

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

 

 

 

EXHIBIT T -

 

NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT AND RIGHT OF SOIL

 

TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS COME, be informed, take Notice: The married parents of this

living man, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter referred to as “Claimant,” celebrated Claimant’s

Nativity on September 09, 1944, on Douglas County, Republic of Missouri, Claimant being the

sixth of eight children, conceived and born, under lawful Christian parentage, introduced and

witnessed, with entry into the Family Bible, into the Birthright of Jacob/Israel, bearing to this day

and forward the Birthright and Promise of Claimant's Creator, Yahweh. Claimant declares full

Rights as a Legitimate Child under the Law.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary; NATURAL CHILDREN. “In the phraseology of the English or

American law, natural children are children born out of wedlock, or bastards, and are

distinguished from legitimate children ;…”

Claimant makes known to the entire world that; Claimant is a Living Man with Standing upon the

Land, being of Aboriginal Cherokee and Israelite descent and stock, upon the American terra

firma, within the surveyed geographical boundaries of the organic State of Missouri and in capita

holder in due course by Birthright, born a legitimate child, in the image of his Heavenly Father

who is Creator of all that is, and by way of this Notice of Birthright, assures all that Claimant is a

living man of substance and surety and able to give credit where Claimant chooses, in any

amount, without limits, but without limited liability. Claimant is NOT a corporation, fiction, legal

entity, legal fiction, debt, debtor (dead – deador, debtor), or any other juristic "person".

 

Claimant plainly declares that he was “birthed” of the water from his Mother’s womb upon the dry

land of the Nation of Missouri; and that the water from his Mother’s womb was the only water

whereby Claimant was “born”. Claimant explicitly denies any association with the “berthing” of a

new vessel in the world of commerce other than Claimant’s own “person”, yielding nothing to the

assumption that any vessel owned by any legal entity, legal fiction, or corporate association that

may have been created at, or near, the same time had, or has, any semblance of association

with Claimant.

 

With this knowledge of the Truth, this Claimant, offers testimony before any Juristic Society,

Counsel of Men, or any fiction of character, that Claimant is not "bonded or bound" to any, save

Claimant's Master, Yahshua, the only begotten Son of the Living Creator, who became Claimant's

surety by way of Blood Sacrifice at the Price of thirty pieces of silver (a commercial transaction),

given into the hand of a hired liar and deceiver (a fiction), working in conjunction with the Courts

of that day, an estimated 2000 years ago. Therefore, Claimant cannot be induced into any "body

politic" contrary with sound Christian Doctrine instilled upon Claimant’s conscience.

 

This Notice of Birthright is offered as Corrective NOTICE that any Certificates of Birth entered

into the fictional corporate world of commerce is based in fraud, propagated in fraud, brought

forward in deceit, and joined in deliberate and malicious trespass upon the conscience and free

will of a man bearing the Birthright of Jacob/Israel and Right of Soil.

 

This NOTICE of Birthright is Fair Notice and Warning for any and all Actors, Fictions, and

Corporate Representatives that the Natal Soil of this Child of the Jacob/Israel Birthright was NOT

a "Port of Entry" for any newly berthed "Legal Entity" to be entered into the fictional, factional or

corporate marketplace as bond, surety, equity, futures, chattel, stock, or trade material, and

stands as correction of any assumption, presumption, or position in any corporate realm to the

contrary.

 

As all jurisdiction flows from Right of Soil, please take Notice of the following: POLLARD v.

HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845), "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the

United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the

territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed... ...[B]ecause, the United

States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or

eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is

expressly granted... ...Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all

the territory within her limits, subject to the common law..."

 

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

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

.  EXHIBIT R -

 

CLAIM OF “FAMOUS MARK”

 

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

other.

TITLE 15, CH 22, SUB CH III § 1125

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

Release date: 2005-08-01

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for

goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination

thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or

misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,

connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin,

sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by

another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics,

qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or

commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he

or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a

State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official

capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to

the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any

nongovernmental entity.

(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement [idem sonanse] under this chapter for trade

dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection

has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

(b) Importation

Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be

imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The

owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may

have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may

have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.

(c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks

(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon

such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s

commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has

become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such

other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and

famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

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

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

with which the mark is used;

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

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

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

(F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used

by the marks’ owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;

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

(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of

February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. [Berth “registry” is the principal register of

the Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.]

(2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled

only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 1116 of this title unless the person against

whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner’s reputation or to cause

dilution of the famous mark [NOTE: birth/berth certificate is worth "how much??" [11 million

“credits”] on world trade market, and, how many "good works" - "goods" have you provided to

society?]. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled

to the remedies set forth in sections 1117 (a) and 1118 of this title, subject to the discretion of

the court and the principles of equity.

(3) The ownership by a person ["personam", not "in persona"] of a valid registration under the

Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a

complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by

another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent

dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

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

(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising

or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous

mark.

(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.

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

(d) Cyberpiracy prevention

(1)

(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal

name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or

services of the parties, that person—

(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is

protected as a mark under this section; and

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

(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain

name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;

(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the

domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or

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

section220506 of title 36.

(B)

(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under

subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

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

domain name;

(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person

or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the

bona fide offering of any goods or services;

(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site

accessible under the domain name;

(V) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location

to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill

represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish

or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source,

sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to

the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or

having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods

or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VII) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information

when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional

failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct

indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VIII) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the

person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are

distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous

marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain

names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and

(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name

registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection

(c)(1) of this section.

(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in

which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to

believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under

this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the

transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.

(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that

person is the domain name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee.

(E) As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are

not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any

other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

(2)

(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial

district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name

authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if—

(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and

Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c) of this section; and

(ii) the court finds that the owner—

(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been

a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or

(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a

defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by—

(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this

paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address

provided by the registrant to the registrar; and

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

the action.

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

(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its

situs in the judicial district in which—

(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or

assigned the domain name is located; or

(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the

registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.

(D)

(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order

for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name

to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a

complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this

paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name

authority shall—

(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court’s

control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the

domain name to the court; and

(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency

of the action, except upon order of the court.

(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be

liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith

or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.

(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under

paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any

other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.

(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other

jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.

 

 

COPYRIGHT NOTICE OF TRADE-NAME, TRADE-MARK

 

Copyright Notice: All rights reserved regarding common-law copyright of trade-name/trade-

mark, JOHN QUINCY JONES©—as well as any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling

of said tradename/trade-mark–Common Law Copyright© 1965 upon attainment of age of majority

by John-Quincy: Jones©. Said common-law tradename/trade-mark, JOHN QUINCY JONES©,

may neither be used, nor reproduced, neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever,

without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of John-Quincy: Jones©,

hereinafter “Secured Party.” With the Intent of being contractually bound, any juristic person,

as well as the agent of said juristic person, shall display, nor otherwise use in any manner, any of

the common-law trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES©, nor the common-law

copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, nor any variation in the spelling of, JOHN

QUINCY JONES©, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Secured

Party, as signified by Secured Party’s signature in blue ink. Secured Party neither grants, nor

implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES©, and

all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Secured Party is not now, nor has Secured Party

ever been, an accommodation party, nor a surety, for the purported debtor, i.e., “JOHN QUINCY

JONES” nor for any derivative of, nor for any variation in the spelling of, said name, nor for any

other juristic person, and is so-indemnified and held harmless by Debtor, i.e., “JOHN QUINCY

JONES” in Hold-harmless and Indemnity Agreement No. (UCC1) 123456789, dated the Seventh

Day of the Second Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Five, against any and all

claims, legal actions, orders, warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions,

summonses, lawsuits, costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses

whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, as are due and as might become due, now existing

and as might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by Debtor

for any and every reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever.

 

Selfexecuting Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized use: By this Copyright

Notice, both the juristic person and the agent of said juristic person, hereinafter jointly and

severally “User,” consent and agree that any use of JOHN QUINCY JONES© other than

authorized use as set forth above constitutes unauthorized use and counterfeiting of Secured

Party’s common-law copyrighted property and contractually binds User and renders this

Copyright Notice a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is

Secured Party, and signifies that User: (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in all of Users

assets, land and personal property, and all of User’s interest in assets, land, and personal

property, in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each occurrence of use of any of the

common-law-copyrighted trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES©, as well as for each

and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of, and variations in the spelling of, JOHN

QUINCY JONES©, plus costs, plus triple damages; (2) authenticates this Security Agreement

wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party, and wherein User pledges all

of User’s property; i.e., all assets, land, consumer goods farm products, inventory, equipment,

money, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letter-of-credit rights, chattel

paper, instruments, deposit accounts, accounts, documents, and general intangibles, and all

User’s interest in all such foregoing property, now owned and hereafter acquired, now existing

and hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing User’s contractual

obligation in favor of Secured Party for Users unauthorized use of Secured Party’s common-law

copyrighted property; (3) consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of a UCC Financing

Statement in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorder’s office, wherein User is

debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party; (4) consents and agrees that said UCC

Financing Statement described above in paragraph “(3)” is a continuing financing statement, and

further consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of any continuation statement necessary

for maintaining Secured Party’s perfected security interest in all of User’s property and interest

property pledged as collateral in this Security Agreement and described above in paragraph “(2),”

until User’s contractual obligation theretofore incurred has been fully satisfied; (5) consents and

agrees with Secured Party’s filing of any UCC Financing Statement, as described above in

paragraphs “(3)” and “(4),” as well as the filing of any Security Agreement, as described above in

paragraph “(2),” in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorder’s office; (6) consents

and agrees that any and all such filings described in paragraphs “(4)” and “(5)” above are not, and

may not be considered, bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus; (7)

waives all defenses; and (8) appoints Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User,

effective upon User’s default re User’s contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party as set

forth below under “Payment Terms” and “Default Terms,” granting Secured Party full

authorization and power for engaging in any and all actions on behalf of User, as Secured Party,

in Secured Party’s sole discretion deems appropriate, and User further consents and agrees that

this appointment of Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon User’s

default is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest.

 

User further consents and agrees with all of the following additional terms of Self-

executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use: Payment Terms: In

accordance with fees for unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES© as set forth above, User

hereby consents and agrees that User shall pay Secured Party all

unauthorized-use fees in full within ten (10) days of the date User is sent Secured Party’s invoice,

hereinafter “invoice,” itemizing said fees. Default Terms: In event of non-payment in full of all

unauthorized use fees by User within ten (10) days of date invoice is sent. User shall be deemed

in default and: (a) all of User’s property and interest in property pledged as collateral by User, as

described above in paragraph “(2),” immediately becomes, i.e., is property of Secured Party; (b)

Secured Party is appointed User’s Authorized Representative as set forth above in paragraph

“(8)”; and (C) User consents and agrees that Secured Party may take possession of, as well as

otherwise dispose of in any manner that Secured Party, in Secured Party’s sole discretion, deems

appropriate, including, but not limited by, sale at auction at any time following User’s

default, and without further notice, any and all of User’s former property and interest in property,

as described above in paragraph “(2),” formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of

Secured Party, in respect of this “Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of

Unauthorized Use,” that Secured Party, again in Secured Party’s sole discretion, deems

appropriate.

 

Terms for Curing Default: Upon event of default, as set forth above under “Default Terms,”

irrespective of any and all of User’s former property and interest in property, in the possession of,

as well as disposed of by, Secured Party, as authorized above under “Default Terms,” User may

cure User’s default regarding the remainder of User’s former property and interest in property

formerly pledged as collateral that is neither in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of, by

Secured Party within twenty (20) days of date of User’s default only by payment in full.

 

Terms of Strict Foreclosure: Users non-payment in full of all unauthorized-use fees itemized in

Invoice within said twenty (20) day period for curing default as set forth above under “Terms for

Curing Default” authorizes Secured Party’s immediate non-judicial strict foreclosure on any and

all remaining property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral by User, now

property of Secured Party, which is not in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of by,

Secured Party upon expiration of said twenty (20) day default-curing period. Ownership subject to

common-law copyright and UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement filed with the UCC

filing office.

Record Owner: John-Quincy: Jones© Autograph Common Law Copyright ©1965. Unauthorized

use of any of “John-Quincy: Jones©” incurs same unauthorized-use fees as those associated

with JOHN QUINCY JONES© as set forth above in paragraph “(1)” under “Self-executing

Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use.”

 

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

 

 EXHIBIT S – Claim of Ownership

 

CERTIFICATE - Claim of Ownership via Warehouse Receipt

 

I, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter known as “Claimant,” do herein place Claim of Ownership

over, upon and against any, and all, facets, aspects, phases and relations of all actions of Real

Existence and True Character signified by a/any piece of parchment, paper or electronic data

entry that makes reference to the Living Man of the Male Gender herein referred to as Claimant

by any Name, Title, Number (or, group of numbers) or Assignment other than Claimants’

Christian Appellation.

 

All Fictions, Legal Entities and Vessels in commerce that make any reference to Claimant are

herein claimed as “Collateral” and property belonging to Claimant.

 

According to Barron’s Dictionary of Banking Terms, a certificate is a “paper establishing an

ownership claim.” The registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all

states adopting the practice by 1933.

 

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse receipts”, now printed

on banknote paper. The items included on a warehouse receipt, as described at Section 7-202 of

the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which

parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

~1. The location of the warehouse where the goods are stored… (residence)

Claimant was born of a woman on, not “in,” Douglas County on Missouri State

and Claimant has no “residence,” but “Lives” within His own carbon based body

of Flesh, Bone and Blood.

~2. The date of issue of the receipt…(“Date issued”) Claimants’ Nativity was

(according to records in Family Bible) September 09, 1944, however, Informants

issued, or caused to be issued, a fictitious Warehouse Receipt stating a “berth-

date” of a newly launched “vessel” in commerce on January 15, 1945.

~3. The consecutive number of the receipt…(found on the certificate, usually in

red) File number 123-45 is found on the “Notification of Birth Registration” that

was recorded at the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA. Subsequent “copy” of “Birth Certificate” shows State File Number

124-44-****** with a “bond” number on the back side, lower right corner, ******.

~4. A description of the goods or of the packages containing them… (Name, sex,

DOB, etc.) Claimants’ Christian Appellation was not found on said Warehouse

Receipt; however, multiple misnomers of “similar sound” were on the face of said

document. One can comprehend that said document is making reference to

Claimant through mention of sex, place of birth, etc.; therefore, Claimant makes

Claim to such collateral.

~5. The signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized

agent… (clerk, doctor, state registrar, etc.) J.C. Capt, Director of the Census

signed on the lower left corner of said document. An indeterminate “person”

signed as “Special Agent, Bureau of the Census.”

 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., “Birth and marriage certificates now appear to at

least qualify as “warehouse receipts” under the Uniform Commercial Code.”

 

Warehouse receipt. “…A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title , may be a

negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security.”

 

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. [In order

to “borrow,” collateral must be “pledged.” A “Maxim” of Law states that one cannot pledge what it

does not “own.”]

 

All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated “warehouse receipts” for births and

marriages in order to pledge a fictional “vessel” they created on paper as collateral against

those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve’s banks. The “Full Faith and

Credit” of the American people is said to be that which back the nation’s debt. That simply means

the American people’s ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers

(slaves), the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that

end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources – “human resources,” that is.

 

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of humans began on July 14, 1862,

when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves

on a “per head” basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle, chattel) continues today with our

current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back

it.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without United

States, 28 USC 1746(1), that the foregoing is true and

correct.                                                                       

L.S.

by___________________________________authorized representative    

 

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

 

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

 

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (of the Public) ARE TRUSTEES

 

Am Juris Prud  - public ‘officers’ ARE trustees

 

 :* *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247* “As expressed otherwise, the powers

delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of

the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.

[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and

whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,

and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative

to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.

[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf

he or she serves.

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

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

of a private individual.

[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends

to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against

public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the

meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute.

 

See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate

concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is

a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear

before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of

fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

 

 

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

 

 EXHIBIT O – Christian Appellation

 

Statutory Declaration of True Name

and

NOTICE and Declaration of Law and Jurisdiction

 

I am recognized and known by my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family. If I

choose to respond, it is only to such Christian Appellation. I am not a corporation, nor a "person",

therefore, no legislative court shall ever obtain "personal jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I cannot use copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against any legislative, or

executive, body, therefore, no legislative, nor executive, body can use said copyrighted codes,

statutes, rules, or regulations against me; and, said "court" fails to obtain "in rem jurisdiction" over

me.

 

 

I have no "residence" within any geographical jurisdiction, I do not "re-side" within any political

jurisdiction, and I am not a magistrate of any federal foreign fictional government, so I have

no entourage for any "residency". I keep house within the geographical Missouri Republic, or

in whatever Republic I so choose, therefore, there is no "state within a state" of federal

jurisdiction, nor is there a political overlay of federal area or postal Zone Improvement Plan,

therefore, there is no "federal jurisdiction" over me, nor is there obtainable any "venue

jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I recognize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as contraband and gambling tokens , issued,

maintained, and controlled within the Private realm of a Private corporation, therefore, I do not

own, handle, nor utilize any of them outside the Rule of Necessity, which is a Rule of Common

Law, originating well before the establishment of the British Colonies on American soil. Therefore,

using only barter, silver, and where absolutely necessary under said ancient rule, Federal

Reserve Notes (which are not of substance), no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain

any "substantive jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I am who I say I am, not who, or what (person), any corporate administrator says I am. Since

there is no lawful money of exchange available to "pay" any debt, or to "pay" any fines, fees,

licenses, penalties, court costs, etc., I cannot be a contemnor, as I am in contempt of nothing.

No Private Man, nor corporate body or agency thereof, can demand that I do the impossible. As it

is impossible to "pay" for anything, no fictional corporate governmental body can demand that I

do the impossible, therefore, no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "legislative

or executive jurisdiction" over me.

 

 

I am not aware of the existence of any judicial branch of any level of true Republican government

nor is any available to me, therefore, no "judicial jurisdiction" is obtainable over me.

 

I am not a U.S. citizen, a United States citizen, a 14th Amendment citizen, nor in any other

manner do I "cite-I-Zen". I am, therefore, NOT an enemy of the "state" under any fictional

corporate charter regulations and no "corporate jurisdiction" is obtainable over me to condemn

me to a category of enemy of any "state".

 

My Constitution is the Holy Writ and I claim only one "color", that being the color of white in the

form of a "flag of truce", making known to all that I have no controversy with any. I have no

"license" to operate contrary to true law. I have no "permit" to temporarily suspend true law,

therefore, no "Admiralty jurisdiction" is obtainable over me.

 

I observe only the True Laws brought forward by the Ancient and Holy Writ, engulfing all

established within principles of the Ten Commandments and the later Commandments to love the

Lord My God with all my mind, soul, and body; and to, love my neighbor as myself; this is my

political establishment, therefore, no fictional political jurisdiction is obtainable over me.

 

I exist only in, and respond only to, my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: Jones. I do not

recognize, nor give cognizance to, any fictional corporate entity, nor do I recognize any of their

agents. No fictional, quasi-governmental agent/agency can obtain parity with me; therefore, no

jurisdiction of agency is obtainable over me.

 

I am in my True Character, a Private Man upon the soil, maintaining only as a private man can,

the Right of Soil. I am not a reflection, image, fiction, or other "person". I own and maintain my

own "person" for purpose of contracting in the realm of commerce in a lawful and upright manner.

My word is my bond when dealing with men. I offer my "signature" when contracting with fictional

entities in commerce. Said "signature" (sig=no nature=alive) means no nature, thus, not alive - it

is a bond offered into debt/death. For this reason such "scribble" is called "cursive writing", cursed

communication with the dead, the fiction. By being responsible for my own "person" under True

Law, I exercise my "personal rights" referred to by Thomas Jefferson, and maintain my lawful

standing, impeccable under law, I do not yield "Character jurisdiction" over me, or my "persons".

 

Respectfully Presented,

 

by _________________________ agent

John-Quincy: Jones, sui juris

.

 

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

 

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

 

Introductory Statement:

 

The lawful Trust, established within the parameters of Trust Doctrine (see EXHIBIT E),

was converted, under unlawful conversion, into a Dead “Person’s” Estate and into that of

a Debtor. Under the law, Debt and Death mean the same; Debt means Dead. Various

Treaties between the United States and offshore foreign countries often appoint

Emissaries and Ambassadors to represent the “death” of the UNITED STATES.

Therefore, for all practical purposes, Grantor is deemed to be the Executor of the

Estate, rather than the Beneficiary to the Trust.

 

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

 

Certain established parameters of language are:

 

VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits

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

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

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

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

4. Exchange for any consideration to support a contract;

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

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

 

The “Right” of Authority is through a Birth Certificate issued by the STATE and ACCEPTED FOR

VALUE; My acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of

America (Article 2, Section 1), is a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill his Promise as Executive

Trustee.

 

The President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the President

(executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office . That is

different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his

capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office . He has a constitutional oath .

 

“Value” is anything recognized as a pledge or the result of a pledge. The birth certificate is the

Resultant Trust of the President’s oath. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would just be

evidence of the obligation every Unites States citizen owes to the United States. Without that one

oath, the birth certificate would not be evidence of the obligation the United States owes to the

people.

 

On the public side, the birth certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S.

citizen to be a surety for the United States. On the public side, it is security for the pledge of

allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by its citizens.

 

On the private side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a promise made by the President to the

people. On the private side, it is security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the

People as beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the baby’s physical description that was

symbolically delivered by an informant (Mother) to the United States. The setoff resulting from

accepting an instrument for value is a distribution from the trust.

 

SUPPORTING NOTES:

 

Remember, when you “accept” an Oath, you consummate an agreement, a contract. When you

accept for “value”, you are accepting the consideration the United States has offered to you as

evidence of an obligation it has to you as a beneficiary; as well as whatever consideration is

offered on the instrument that is being transferred to you through the United States citizen you

represent. The United States is humbling itself by asking you to give it assistance. It is applying

for credit on every instrument that is issued or transferred for value. If you just receive one of

these instruments [even a utility “bill”] without accepting it for value and returning it for value, the

presumption is that you intend to pay it. You can pay it with a check, or you can pay it with your

prepaid account. It is up to you, but you have to pay it immediately, or you will be deemed to be in

dishonor. If you A4V, you can use a distribution from the trust to “pay” the instrument. If you just

retain it or argue about the existence or amount of the request, you will pay it with a check,

tangible property, or your body.

 

Did the United States offer a birth certificate to you? Did you receive it? Did you accept it for value

and return it as a security? If you do not accept it for value and deposit it as an asset, you have

voluntarily waived rights to a distribution that is available to you. In a purely commercial system,

rights are remedies. Parties to a modern commercial transaction need remedies in the event one

of them breaches the terms of the agreement. The birth certificate is a remedy, and represents an

antecedent claim you have against the United States. It is also evidence of a preexisting contract.

It represents the prepaid account you have available to you for setoffs. Acceptance is an

agreement and leads to a binding contract. If you don’t set the terms of that binding contract, the

United States will.

 

 

Beneficiary NOTICES Presidential Delegates:

DHS (executive)

Sec of Treasury (legislative)

DOJ (judicial)

Sec of State (administrative)

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

Birth,” to wit:

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

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

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

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

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

2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value (signature on application for birth certificate)

for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction (distribution from the

trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

3. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (Constitution) for rights (to be recognized

internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction

(acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay international

creditors).

4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value (Article VI oath) for rights (to hold an

office) as security (promise to support “this” constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a

preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

5. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for rights (to

be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to abide by

terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a preexisting

claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy).

6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as

security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance)

of a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

 

Make a note of this – The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath , is the

ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the

HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate). It is the holder who acquires a security interest in the

instrument, IF he takes the instrument for value. It is not the issuer who has the security interest;

it is the holder. The issuer has the liability.

 

Judicial court orders can transfer rights in property, creating a security interest in the title to the

subject property, but that is not how it works with an instrument that is issued for value. An order

for a judicial court-created security interest is not the type of instrument that a transferee would

take for value; but, an order for an executive court-created security interest is a type of instrument

that a transferee would take for value. United States courts are not judicial courts; they are

territorial courts and were created through Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 by the power granted to

the Congress to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” Their orders do not result in

security interests through judicial proceedings.

 

To avoid fraud, the instrument has to be issued for value. It gives the transferee (a U.S. citizen) a

security interest in the instrument. The only piece of paper a man has the is proof of the security

interest he has is the birth certificate. It has no value on the private side, but it does on the public

side if he deposits with an appropriate banker, who can then be the man’s securities intermediary,

and the man can be the entitlement holder. This is explained in UCC Article 8 in the 500 series.

 

An Order that a securities intermediary deposit the birth certificate makes it a security. It appears

that the birth certificate is not an actual security until it passes to a second holder, i.e., from the

issuer (State of Missouri) to the Department of Commerce of the United States (the Department

of Transportation, Bureau of the Census). The United States uses the certificate until you decide

you want to use it. You have the priority right to it as a security for the obligation the United States

has to you. It was issued to you.

 

A bond can be given written against the security (bond = birth certificate) he is holding. A

promissory note can be written against the bond that is written against the security. Such a

promissory note would be an order from the entitlement holder to the securities intermediary to

use the security he is maintaining for a specific purpose.

 

UCC 8-102(a)(8) “Entitlement order ” means a notification communicated to a securities

intermediary directing transfer or redemption of a financial asset to which the entitlement holder

has a security entitlement.

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

(a) a securities intermediary shall take action to obtain a payment or distribution made by the

issuer of a financial asset. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if:

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

holder and the securities intermediary; or

(2) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance

with reasonable commercial standards to attempt to obtain the payment or distribution.

(b) A securities intermediary is obligated to its entitlement holder for a payment or distribution

made by the issuer of a financial asset if the payment or distribution is received by the securities

intermediary.

 

Since securities intermediaries have obligations to entitlement holders, the securities

intermediaries must have capacity to act. That is done under the premise that a securities

intermediary is declared in the commercial code to be a purchaser for value. The indirect holding

system of the United States would not function as expected if the securities intermediary did not

have capacity to act. Without the rights of an owner or a purchaser, the securities intermediary

would be powerless to act in the intended manner.

 

UCC 8-116 Securities Intermediary as Purchaser For Value

A securities intermediary that receives a financial asset and establishes a security entitlement to

the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder is a purchaser for value of the financial asset.

 

UCC 3-303. Value and consideration

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

3. The instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent

claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due;

 

“Giving value” from 1-201 is not the same as “transferring for value” from 3-303. The transferor

(issuer) in 303 usually wants to get a valuable consideration back for an instrument he issues for

value, and he wants a new contract on which he or the person he represents is the creditor.

 

When an instrument issued for value is received and retained, it is accepted as though the

receiver has given it a blank endorsement, and the transfer of liability has been successful. A

blank endorsement waives all the defects, and the main defect in an instrument issued for value

is that there is no security attached to it. If it were not for the inherent security interest in the

instrument itself, the whole project would be fraud.

 

The issuer is not giving value; he is seeking value. The issuer is not giving consideration; he is

seeking consideration. These abnormalities can be cured if the transferee gives it a qualified

endorsement as a payment and returns the payment for closure of the account. After acceptance

through a blank endorsement, the issuer’s consideration is presumed, and the endorser is liable

on the instrument. A commitment (implied or express) by the transferee (to take on the liability)

through a general acceptance would be a valuable consideration on his part, and would result in

a binding contract. He is then obligated on the instrument to make immediate payment.

 

If you cannot tell on the face of the instrument if it is a promise or an order, it can be treated as

either. When the payee receives a check, it is a promise. When he negotiates it by endorsing it

and delivering to a bank, it is an order.

 

Until someone gives an endorsement, an instrument issued for value is not negotiable. If the

transferee makes the instrument negotiable as a security with a blank endorsement, the

transferee must pay it. He can give it a qualified endorsement by accepting it for value, to make it

a payment. When it is subsequently presented to a third party (banker), it is an order from the

maker to the third party to pay it. The instrument issued for value becomes the very payment that

pays it. If the transferee gives it a blank endorsement (by his silence) and does not return it with

his check, he makes the instrument his promise and also makes the instrument negotiable as a

security. Whoever has a right to enforce it can negotiate it. If the transferee has no idea what to

do with it, he might inadvertently make it a security and commit himself to pay it. It is his choice.

There is a price for ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity; it is lack of knowledge. If an instrument

is issued and transferred for value, the person who is the transferee can make it the issuer’s note

(promise) and the transferee’s draft (order). The transferee can be the one entitled to enforce the

instrument if he gives it a proper endorsement. If he does not, the transferor is the person entitled

to enforce the instrument, and he will enforce it.

 

A case designed to seize property of a U.S. citizen is called a penal action. It is not civil, and it is

not criminal. It is based on violation of statutes that were implemented to facilitate collections

from U.S. citizens to pay the national debt. Libels of information are used to obtain arrest

warrants from the clerks of executive courts so the proceeding can be commenced. These are

not cases; they are proceedings.

 

When an indictment (true bill), which is actually a libel of information, or other bill is presented to a

U.S. citizen by the United States, an obligation on a preexisting claim against the United States

(national debt) is being transferred to the transferee (surety - defendant or debtor). The bill is

issued for value. The endorser is expected to create the “money,” both for the payment and for

the security. The United States wants the U.S. citizen to supply the value. There is no actual

security, antecedent claim, or preexisting contract behind it. No money is needed if the transferee

treats it as a payment and sends it to the issuer’s banker with a qualified endorsement. This puts

the endorser in the driver’s seat and makes him the party entitled to enforce the instrument. On

the other hand, no money is needed if the transferee treats it as a security by giving it a blank

endorsement and keeping (holding) it. This puts the issuer or his principal in the driver’s seat and

entitles the principal to enforce the instrument.

 

Since 1933, the only money in circulation is money of account that is created on demand at the

time it is needed to satisfy an immediate need. If a bill is issued with nothing to secure it, it has to

be issued for value, because the money to pay it (promise to back it) has not been created. If the

transferee receives a bill and does not pay it immediately, he is in default. Some say the reason it

cannot be paid is because no check to pay it was included with the bill. The instrument is the

check if it is taken as a payment, made negotiable with a proper endorsement, and turned into a

draft (issuer’s order). If the transferee accepts it for value and returns it to the issuer’s banker

(Secretary of the Treasury) as payment to balance the books and close the account, he is not in

default. Since it was issued for value, and transferred for value, it can be accepted for value. To

be a holder in due court, the endorser must take (accept) the instrument for value. See 3-302,

Holder in due course above.

 

Under Article 3, if an instrument is issued for value, it is also issued for consideration. The issuer

either gives the consideration through the instrument, or issues the instrument for value to receive

the consideration from the transferee. When an instrument is accepted (taken) for value, it can be

returned to pay the bill, and the transaction is finished. All the required bookkeeping entries for an

accrual bookkeeping system can be made based on the offer for value and the acceptance for

value. This bookkeeping cannot be done if the bill is not returned with an appropriate

endorsement though. If the bill is not returned, the bookkeeper has an unbalanced account. All

accounts must be closed at the end of the business day in an accrual system. An unbalanced

account necessitates entries into the accounts payable and accounts receivable ledgers. If you

are the cause of a payable, you are also responsible for the receivable, so your retention of the

instrument is deemed to be a blank endorsement. If you do not balance that account, an

executive court will do it for you. That usually results in a statutory penalty being applied against

you through the U.S. citizen you represent.

 

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

 

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

 

  EXHIBIT L – Demand for Exchange of Value

 

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

(ll) Transmittor. The sender of the first transmittal order in a transmittal of funds. The term

transmittor includes an originator, except where the transmittor's financial institution is a financial

institution or foreign financial agency other than a bank or foreign bank.

 

(vv) Stored value. Funds or monetary value represented in digital electronics format (whether or

not specially encrypted) and stored or capable of storage on electronic media in such a way as to

be retrievable and transferable electronically.

 

VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits

 

Claimant has no record or evidence that True and Honest Value and/or related Services has ever

been manifested on behalf of Claimant, the Living Man, as per:

 

On March 3, 1851 Congress passed a law called "The Public Liability Statute." As a

result, ship (the numbered vessel registered after the “application for a Birth Certificate”)

owners (the corporate U.S.S.A.) are now exempt from damages to goods while involved

in “commerce;” now, the shippers are responsible for such goods under maritime law,

whereby “we” are responsible for any loss which occurs while involved in maritime

commerce, which is a gambling policy, which is an “insurance” tontine scheme which

“wagers” for profit. All insurance falls under Maritime Law. This was/is a cunning and

despicable plot to re-institute a tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the

Federal Reserve. This is FRAUD.

 

When a “person,” a vessel that may enter commerce, commences action into the credit

system (which is really a “Debt” System) of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve)

they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of

limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint venture is the use of the communal

credit (debt), wherein an insurable interest has been created. The insurable interest is

what the federal income tax, right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other

obscenities are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the

credit for profit. Anything that involves Federal Reserve Notes is under Maritime Law

because FRNs are an insurance premium.

 

In De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that

insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction. Maritime or

Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit

policy. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and replaced by a wagering policy of

insurance under Admiralty Law. I could display well over a dozen case cites that explain

the use of FRNs is “wagering”, but for space and brevity I will not provide.

 

Remembering that FRNs are Negotiable Instruments, one viable defense against such a

Beast as herein discussed is to challenge it at every stage of its offense. The UCC 3-

305(a)(1)(iii) affirms...  ...one of the other defenses is that the instrument is illegal, when

that instrument has been deemed to mean for collecting usury or gambling debts .

[Usury equals INTEREST; it is also a gamble]

 

The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15) is bankrupt on the authority of

Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an "obligor/grantor" to

the Federal Reserve Bank created by the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913,

38 Stat. 265, Chapter 6.

 

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law, not

Public Law (see Exhibit K - Interlocking Directorates for full explanation), nor Public

Policy, as in reference to a Mr. Lewis which was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle

and sued the U.S. government for damages. The court ruled, "...that since the Federal

Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal

government could not be held responsible."- Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982).

 

Congress (having exclusive jurisdiction over that ten mile square territory known as

Washington, D.C.) agreed in the Federal Reserve Act to give that bank system a

paramount and "permanent" (ex-warranto 1913 to 1933) lien on the United States (UCC

9-307(h), the United States is located IN Washington, D.C.) assets and the USER of said

bank notes by the authority of 38 Stat. 265, Ch. 6, pp. 266-267. The USER agrees, as a

"parole promise," to accept the status as an obligor/grantor and to hypothecate all "his"

assets to the United States and thereby to the Federal Reserve which is merely a private

corporation, and not "federal." The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a collection

agreement as a "USER" fee for the USE of said bank notes (see Interlocking

Directorates).

 

I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of Federal Reserve Notes as I cannot consent

and do not assent to be an obligor/grantor to said Federal Reserve Bank. I

"SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of said bank notes on the authority of MacLeod v.

Hoover, (June 22, 1925) No. 26395, S. Ct. Louisiana; 105 So.Rptr. 305. That court citing

U.S. Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheaton 338; 6 L.Ed. 343.

 

Therefore, I refuse for good cause shown, any, and all, corporate and/or

governmental agents/agencies and participating affiliates, to induce me to be a tort

feasor to the Constitution for The United States of America where at Article 1, Section 10,

it states, "No State shall emit bills of credit; make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a

tender in payment of debts."

 

The Congress of the United States of America, by the authority of the Gold Bullion Act of

1985, Public Law 99-185, December 17, 1985, 99 Statutes 1177, has given its intent that

all Americans can no longer be forced into an obligor/grantor status to said Federal

Reserve Bank Notes.

 

There is no debating the established fact that: Federal Reserve Notes of Debt can be

made legal tender for parties of/with a relationship to/with the Federal Government; i.e.,

those persons who have a nexus/benefit such as; federal government employees,

recipient of federal largesse, elected federal office holders, or those who choose to use

Federal Reserve Notes, either knowingly or unknowingly, but states and individuals

cannot be compelled to use Federal Reserve Notes. [I am an Individual and, in a certain

sense, a foreign state.]

 

All Administrators, Agents, and Agencies must take judicial notice of TEXAS CODE (imported

under “Equal Footing Doctrine”) Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures, to wit:

 

"All recognizance’s, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party

becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a

pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the United States only,"

and,

 

Nevada. NRS 99.010 Dollar, cent and mill to be money of account. The money of

account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill. All the accounts in the public

offices, other public accounts, and all proceedings in courts, shall be kept and had in

conformity with this section," and,

 

Nevada. NRS 99.030 Obligation, judgments or executions payable in legal money. After February

15, 1893, all official bonds and undertakings, and all obligations of debt, judgments or executions

stated in terms of dollars and to be paid in money shall be payable in legal money authorized by

the Congress of the United States," and,

 

Title 31 USC Section 371:

"The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units,

dimes or tenths, cents or hundredth part of a dollar; and all proceedings in the courts

shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation," and,

 

Title 31 USC Section 311:

"It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold

and silver as standard money...."

 

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

DOLLAR IS.

 

Title 31 USC § 408 prohibits the redemption of any currency into gold and Title 31 USC §

405(a)-3 prohibits the redemption of any United States currency dollar for dollar into gold

and silver. So, the law itself prohibits Affiant from using any “Lawful Money.” And, for a

check to be a negotiable instrument, it must contain an unconditional promise to pay a

sum certain in money and be payable on demand or at a definite time (UCC 3-103 (b)

(c)). Thus, neither the bank nor this Affiant is able to comply with the law of money and

cannot be held a contemnor. Currency, “Money” as it is commonly known, or thought to

be, is "contraband" at statute!!! Affiant has thoroughly invoked “Rule Of Necessity”

for any “mistakes” made by way of usage of Federal Reserve Notes.

Also, TITLE 31 USC, § 306.10, 2 - Taxpayer identifying numbers are not required for

foreign governments, nonresident aliens not engaged in trade or business within the

United States…

 

 

DEEPER FRAUD: SUPPORTING NOTES

"The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be construed to

mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152. Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5

Phila. 366. 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879);   Lawry v. McGhee , 16 Tenn.

242 (1835), and,

 

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

 

"Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness and promise of payment."

Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al, 223 N.Y.S. 481.

 

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

 

"In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for

embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling greenbacks or national

currency notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And,

 

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part

of the circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be considered as money; but, in

the strict sense of the term, they are not included therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C.

58,60. And,

 

""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any

money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include

bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated

as such." Johnson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325. And,

 

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute

making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment charging that the

defendant played at a game of faro for money--cannot be sustained by proof that bank

notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was

bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And,

 

"The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another

any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and violence, and

with intent to steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St.

422,426.

 

 

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

In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones

Who may be NOTICED at:

C/O 123 West Columbus Street

Somewhere, Missouri Republic

Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

 

 

 

NOTICE OF:

DIPLOMATIC PROTEST

(To be applied in conjunction with NOTICE OF

ADVERSE CLAIM and NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION)

 

Public  international  law  is  proper  law  regarding  unilateral  international  transactions 

or  'acts'  concerning  subjects  and  objects  of  international  law:  

 

Note: “Renunciation” as follows means “Expatriation” from de facto oligarchy and

“Repatriation” into the de jure Republic.

 

As  international  acts  concerning  the  public  law  succession  to  sovereignties,  the  proper 

law  applicable  to  such  dynastic  renunciations  and  their  proper  interpretation  is  public 

international  law  concerning  subjects  of  international  law  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place 

where  the  renunciation  happens  to  be  signed:

 

A  renunciation  is  an unilateral   International   transaction   subject   to   public   international   law  

as  the  proper  law:  See  Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,  International   Law ,  Vol.  I,  Nos.  486 &

488. 

   

Similar  to  treaties,  the  municipal  or  domestic  law  of  the  place  where  a  renunciation 

concerning  the  succession  to  subjects  of  public  international  law  is  made  does  not 

constitute  the  proper  law  of  that  renunciation:  See  Lord  McNair,  Law   of   Treaties   (1961), 

100-101;   Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,  International   Law ,  Vol.  I,  Nos. 21 &22;   Article  13  of 

The   Declaration   of   Rights   and   Duties   of   States ,  9  June  1949  by  the  International  Law 

Commission  of  the  United  Nations;   1887  U. S,   Foreign   Relations   751 at  753.    See  also 

Articles  27,  46,  and  47  of  the  1969  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties.

 

The  same  is  true  of  any  treaty:   The  proper  law  of  that  treaty  is  public  international  law 

rather  than  the  municipal  (domestic)  law  of  the  place  where  the  treaty  was  signed.   

Thus,  a  treaty  may  properly  affect  international  rights  in  a  manner  which  might  not  be 

recognised  for  private  law  rights  under  the  municipal  law  of  the  place  where  that  treaty 

was  signed  --  the  treaty  as  an  international  act  concerning  subjects  and  objects  of 

international  law  being  governed  by  public  international  law,  not  the  local  municipal  law.

 

The  validity  of  dynastic  renunciations  referencing  subjects  of  public  international  law  is 

subject  only  to  the  peremptory  norms  of  international  law.    See  Lord  McNair,  Law   of  

Treaties  (1961),  pp.  213-236.   Brownlie,  Principles   of   Public   International   Law ,  p.  417.  

See  also  Article  53  of  the  1969  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties.

 

Similar  to  treaties,  the  renunciation  of  rights  to  subjects  of  international  law  are  governed 

by  the  canons  of  construction  applicable  to  treaties  and  international  agreements.

 

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

 

Under the doctrines  of  public  international  law  a  ruler  who  is  deprived  of the government of

his  country  by  either  an  invader  or  revolutionaries  remains  the  legitimate  de  jure 

Sovereign  of  that  Country  while  the  de  facto  regime  set  up  by  the  revolutionaries  or  the 

invader  is  considered  an  "usurper",  both  constitutionally  and  internationally.   See  Hugo 

Grotius  De   jure   belli   ac   pacis,   libri   Tres ,  Book  I,  Chapter  4,  Nos.  15-19.

 

Such  de  jure  possession  of  sovereignty  continues  so  long  as  the  de  jure  ruler  or 

government  does  not  surrender  his  sovereignty  to  the  usurper.   See  Johann  Wolfgang 

Textor,  Synopsis   Juris   Gentium ,  Chapter  10,  Nos.  9-11.

 

Upon  the  fall,  dispossession, or  usurpation  of  a  monarchy,  the  de  jure  legal  rights  to  the 

succession  of  that  monarchy  may  be  kept  alive  indefinitely  through  the  legal  vehicle  of 

making  diplomatic  protests  against  the  usurpation.   See  Emerich  Vattel,  Le   Droit   des  

gens,  Book  II,  Chapter  II,  Nos.  145-146.

 

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

of  their  usurped  country.

  

Governments-in-Exile  are subjects  of  public  international  law,  and  matters  relating  to  them 

are  within  the  scope  of  the  jurisdiction  of  public  international  law  as  the  applicable 

proper  law  ...  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place  where  that  Government-in-Exile  may  be 

located.   See  Whitman,  Digest   of   International   Law ,  Vol.  I,  pp.  921-930.    F. E. 

Oppenheim,  "Governments  and  Authorities  in  Exile,"  36  American   Journal   of   International  

Law  (1942),  pp.  568-595.   Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,  International   Law ,  Vol.  I,  No.  144.

 

The  public  international  law  regarding  the  legal  effect  of  protests  against  the  usurpation 

of  sovereignty  applies  to  republics  as  well  as  to  monarchies, democracies, or

oligarchies:    The  United  States  of  America  refused  to  recognise  the  1939  Soviet 

usurpation  of  the  three  Baltic  Republics  of  Estonia,  Latvia ,  and  Lithuania.    This 

facilitated  the  maintenance  of  Governments-in-Exile  of  the  Baltic  Republics  and  the 

maintenance  of  embassies  in  Washington, D. C.,  which  persisted  through  the  Cold  War 

Era  until  these  countries  managed  to recover  their  independence. 

   

Accordingly,  matters  pertaining  to  de  jure  Governments-in-Exile  are  matters  of  public 

international  law.     The  de  jure  sovereignty  of  a  state  which  has  been  usurped  by  a 

foreign  conqueror  is  not  extinguished  by  such  usurpation  but  survives  as  long  as  such 

sovereignty  is  kept  alive  by  competent   diplomatic   protests .   See  Philip  Marshall  Brown, 

"Sovereignty  in  Exile,"  35  American   Journal   of   International   Law   (1941),  p.  666-668.

 

Exiled  Sovereigns  and  Governments  choice  of  law  that  of  usurped  state  to  govern 

political  and  public  acts:

 

Under  public  international  law  a  Government-in-Exile,  monarchical  or  republican,  is 

deemed  to  have  the  implied  constitutional  power  to  perform  all  normal  acts  of  state   ...  

including  those  acts  which  by  its  own  constitution  would  require  the  consent  of  an  organ 

of  government,  such  as  a  parliament, the congress, senate, and the higher Supreme Court of

the People,  which  are  at  present  suspended  due  to  the  conditions  arising  from  a 

usurpation  of  sovereignty.   See  F. E.  Oppenheim,  "Governments  and  Authorities  in  Exile," 

36  American   Journal   of   International   Law  (1942),  pp.  568  at  581-582.

 

In  such  cases  the  choice  of  law  by  the  parties  making  the  renunciation  of  dynastic 

rights  concerning  sovereignties  is  the  public  law  of  that  former  State  rather  than  the  law 

of  the  place  where  the  renunciation  was  signed.

  

Choice  of  law  is  very  common  in  private  law  commercial  law  contracts:   A  grain  supplier 

located  in  Argentina  shipping  wheat  to  a  purchaser  in  Russia  upon  a  Liberian  ship  will 

commonly  contract  that  the  law  relating  to  the  shipment  of  the  wheat  will  be  British  law 

(because British  shipping  law  has  been  so  well interpreted)  even  though  neither  the 

buyer,  seller  or  the  shipper  has  any  'contact'  with  the  United  Kingdom.  In  all  such  cases 

courts  will  apply  the  law  of  choice  as  the  substantive  law  governing  that  contract  as  the 

proper  law  applicable  to  that  contract  rather  than  the  law  of  the  place  where  the 

contract  was  signed,  the  goods  were delivered,  or  the  nationality  of  the  vessel  making 

delivery.

 

Thus,  if  a  Government-in-Exile  located  abroad  (say  the  Governments-in-Exile  of  one  of 

the  three  Baltic  Republics  during  the  Cold  War  Era)  makes  a  public  law  act  concerning 

its  former  State  which  has  been  usurped  (as  were  the  three  Baltic  Republics  by  the 

Soviet  Union),  the  legal  validity  of  the  acts  of  that  Government-in-Exile  are  governed  by 

the  public  or  constitutional  law  of  that  usurped  State  rather  than  by  the  law  of  the 

place  where  the  Government-in-Exile  happens  to  be  located. 

 

Survival of private law rights acquired under former sovereign:

The  fall,  revolution,  or  usurpation  of  a  former  government  or  state  brings  into  play  the 

international  law  of  state  succession  to  govern  resulting  legal  affairs:    Briefly,  within  the 

usurped  State  the  public  law  of  the  former  sovereign  governing  constitutional  and  public

institutional  matters  must,  of  necessity,  fall.    However,  the  statutory  law  of  the  former 

Sovereign  survives  to  govern  private   legal   rights   acquired   or   'vested'   under  such 

statutory  law  of  the  former  Sovereign.    As  'vested'  or  acquired  private  law  legal  rights,  

such  survive  the  change  or  succession  of  sovereign.    Such   'vested'   private   law   legal  

rights   must   be   recognised   by   the   new   or   usurping   sovereign .

 

The  general  proposition  of  public  international  law  is  that  the  municipal  law  of  a  country 

is  not  changed  by  a  change  of  sovereignty.    Private   law   rights   acquired   or   'vesting'  

under   the   law   of   the   former   sovereign   remain   valid   after   state   succession   and   continue  

to   be   governed   by   the   law   of   the   former   Sovereign   applicable   at   the   time   when   such  

private   law   rights   originally   'vested'   or   were   acquired     ...     notwithstanding   the   fact   that   the  

former   Sovereign   has   been   de   facto   replaced .

  

In  support  of  this  proposition  see  the  decisions  of  The  Hague  "World  Court,  the 

Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  in  the  case  of  the  German   Settlers   in   Poland , 

P.C.I.J.,  Series  B,  No. 6, Advisory  Opinion  No.  8,  Annual   Digest ,  1923-1924,  Case  No. 

37.;  Sopron-Koszeg   Local   Railway   Company   Case ,  Lega  of  Nations,  Official  Journal, 

1929,  p.  1359;  American  Journal  of  International  law,  Vol.  XXIV  (1930)  pp.  164-174; 

Annual   Digest ,  1929-1930,  Case  No.  34;   E.   Thalheimer   v.   Yugoslav   State   before  the 

Hungarian-Yugoslav  Mixed  Arbitral  Tribunal  on  6  Sept  1928,  Recueil,  VIII,  p.  579,  Annual  

Digest,  1927-1928,  Case  no.  60;   State   Succession   (Notarial   Act)   Case ,  before  the 

Austrian  Supreme  Court  in  Civil  Matters  decided  13  May  1919,  Annual   Digest ,  1919-

1922,  Case  No.  40;   Occupation   of   Crete   Case ,  the  Greek  Court  of  Cassation,  Annual  

Digest,  1925-1926,  Case  No.  69;   Heirs   of   the   Prince   Mohammed   Selim   v.   The  

Government   of   Palestine, ,  Annual   Digest   1935-1937,  Case  No.  39;   Mihan   Singh   v.   the  

Sub-Divisional   Canal   Officer ,  Annual   Digest ,  1954,  pp.  64-66;   Supreme Court of India  in 

Virendra   Singh   v.,   State   of   Uttar   Pardesh ,   Annual   Digest ,  1955,  p.  131.

 

Given  the  many  separate  state  successions  involved  in  the  formation  of  the  United 

States  between  Great  Britain,  France,  Spain,  the  Republic  of  Texas,  and  Hawaii,  this 

doctrine  is  also  affirmed  in the  following  decisions  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 

in  United   States   v.   Perchman ,  7  Pet.  51,  86-87  (1830);  United   States   v.   Chavez ,  159  U.

S.  453  (1895);  Brownsville   v.   Cavazos ,  100  U. S.  138,  25  L. Ed  574  (1879);  United  

States   v.   Perot ,  98  U. S.  428  (1879);  Fremont   v.   United   States   17  How.  542,  58 U. S. 

241  (1854);   United   States   v.   Fullard-Leo ,  331  U. S.  256  (1946)  Society for the Propagation

of the Gospel   v.   Town   of   New   Haven ,  8  Wheat.  464,  at  493  (1823);   Delassus   v.   United  

States,  9  Pet.  117  at  133;  United   States   v.   the   Heirs   of   Clarke   and   Atkinson ,  16  Pet. 

228,  at  232;   Dent   v.   Emmeger ,  14  Wall.  308  at  312  (1871);  Soulard   v.   United   States ,  4 

Pert.  511  at  512  (1830);  Terrett   v.   Taylor   9  Cranch  43  at  50  (1815);Ely   v.   the   United  

Stated,  171  U. S.  220  at  223;   Shapleig   v.   Mier ,  299  U. S. 468  at  470  (1937);

 

The  same  doctrine  of  public  international  law  re  complete  survival  of  'vested'   private  

law   rights   upon  state  succession  has  also  been  affirmed  in  the  following  decision  of 

American  State   courts   in   Miller   v.   Letzerich ,  49  Sw2d  404,  85  A.L.R.  451  (Texas, 

1932);  Harris   et   al.   v.   O'Conner ,  185  Sw2d  993  (Texas,  2944);   Manry   v.   Robison   et   al,  

56  Sw2d  438  at  444;  122  Tex.  213  (1932);   Pendery   v.   Panhandle   Refining   Co ,  169 

SW2d 766;   Maricopa   County   Municipal   Water   Conservation   District   No, 1   v.   Southwest  

Cotton   Co ,  4  P2d  369  (1931);   Vanderslice   v.   Hanks ,  3  California  27  at  37-38  (1852);  

State   v.   Valmont   Plantations ,  346  S.W.2d  853  (Texas,  1961);   State   v.   Balli ,  190  S.W.2d 

71  at  99  (Texas, 1945);   Luttes   v.   State ,  289  S.W. 2d 357  (Texas  1956)  and  324  S.W,.

2d  167 at 176.

 

The invocation of  the Treaty of Peace with verbiage more understandable at: Chisholm v. State

of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793), clearly specifies that “We The People” are not

“Subjects”, but, rather Sovereigns without subjects.

 

The following is a compilation of various case cites with objective to make more explicit the

meaning of this DIPLOMATIC PROTEST: [bolding, underlining, etc. added] SOVEREIGNS

WITHOUT SUBJECTS – ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY OF PARIS 1884

 

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt

currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the

government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in

the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to

the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private

citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless

it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course* of some contract or

commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and

performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same

evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes". For purposes of suit, such

corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371. [*See footnote – Holder In Due

Course Notes]

 

“Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by

direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a

policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross

negligence in managing subordinates who cause violations.” Gallegos v. Haggerty,

Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93

 

"History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure

certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal

Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.

 

Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend

to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are

sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the

sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.”

Afroyim v Rusk, 387 US 253; 87 S.Ct. 1660. “In our country the people are sovereign

and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their

citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution

limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary

and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.”

The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to

see that it is an established fact, as well as a respected and valid concept.

"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his

prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the

sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern

but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants

in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455

@DALL 1793 pp471-472

"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within

the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are

naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the

intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All

strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and

owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection." Carlisle v. United States, 83

U.S. 147, 154 (1873)

Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a

Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond

the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the

Land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by

due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the

public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

 

A vast assortment of supportive reference material is available, however, I feel I have displayed a

sufficient array for confirmation and clarity of my Claims.

 

The “Doctrine Of Contribution” applies explicitly to Affiant, for I: a man called John-Quincy: of

the family of Jones: holding the office of the people: adhere to the Ten Commandments: with full

liability: in and for the judicial-district: Douglas: the county; country of Missouri: under the authority

of the one living deity: King of kings, and Lord of lords: Yahweh: John-Quincy: Jones - Exiled

Sovereign.

 

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

 

 

INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES

A/K/A INTERLOCKING EQUITY TIES

to establish parameters of fiduciaries

 

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

 

Thomas Jefferson said in 1821:  “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the

judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little

today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of

jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and

will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

 

President Theodore Roosevelt 1906: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an

invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the

people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between

corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” 

 

President Woodrow Wilson: "Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce

and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there

is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete,

so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in

condemnation of it."

 

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

  

Harry S. Truman: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice

of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly

repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a

country where everyone lives in fear.”

 

Luke 11:46 “Woe unto you also, you lawyers; for you lade men with burdens grievous to be

borne, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

 

Luke 11:52 “Woe unto you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge: you entered

not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered.”

 

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

 

May I remind you that - failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42

U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, etc...) is a Criminal Offense ?

 

To simplify issues and bring clarity concerning duties, responsibilities, and obligations of

the offending corporate STATE OF MISSOURI officials, we present the following Interlocking

Directorates:

 

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

 

a. 77 Stat. 630-631, P.L. 88-243 (1963) and P.L. 88-244 (1963) introduces and "makes law"

providing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as Private Law enacted for the municipal

District of Columbia and the United States (federal government). These laws/actions were/are

expressly in force and effect on citizens of the federal government. PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630 is

"AN ACT To enact the Uniform Commercial Code for the District of Columbia, and for

other purposes." This is where the uniform commercial code enters as the implied "law of the

land." [SEE also, H.J. Res 778, December 10, 1963, 77 Stat 775]

 

"It is well settled that "United States" et al is a corporation, originally incorporated

February 21, 1871, under the name "District of Columbia"". 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62

 

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

 

For sake of simplicity, a "Public Law", as referenced, P.L. 88-244, is Private Law only meant

for private corporate citizens, not We The People.

 

(i) "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or

corporations": 50 AmJur 12, p.28

 

(ii) A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its

enforcement are enacted: 20 AmJur 33, pgs. 58, 59.

 

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

 

 (iv) In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks

derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v.

Federal Reserve Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979).

 

(v) The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when

published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly 133 U.S. 21 (1890).

 

b. It is all private law, not International law (but, may be referred to as Private International

Law), and it is owned by the same people that own public law 88-243 (1968). The UCC was

written and is owned by UNIDROIT. It is in the Vatican (actually, it is only about one

hundred yards from the "Holy See").

 

(i) To properly address "public law", one must understand that it is "Private Corporate

Charter" that owns the "P.L." and it is all "statutory". Public Law was converted to Public

Policy in 1938 (policy = political = police). All private corporations, including governments,

are under "public policy" and are to deal only with other corporations, as exemplified

herein.

 

(ii) The Private Rights of Private Man is not affected by public law, public policy, private

law, or anything else, as long as, Private Man does not harm another Private Man. He is

not "statutory", but Lawful.

A. "We the people have discharged any debt which may be said to exist or

owed to the state/government.  The governments are, presumably, indebted

continually to the people, because the people [the sovereigns] presumably

assented to the 1878 creation of the government corporation and because we

suffer its continued existence.  The continued debt owed to the people is

discharged only as it continues not to violate our private rights, and when

government fails in its duty to provide protection-discharge its debt to the

people, it is an abandonment [delictual fault] of any and all power, authority or

vestige of sovereignty which it may have otherwise possessed, and the laws

remain the same, the sovereignty reverting to the people whence it came."

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).

B. "All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty

to provide protection for private rights Wynhammer v. People, (13 NY 378),

which duty is a debt owed to its creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private

unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor

discharged, and is perpetual.  No matter what the de facto government/state

provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised

individual owes nothing to the government." (Emphasis mine) Hale v. Henkel,

201 U.S. 43.

 

(iii) Public means: of, concerning, or affecting the common unity of the people, the

Assemblage of Private Man.

 

(iv) Private means: not available for public use, control, or participation, belonging to a

particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government (remember, as

a corporation, the gubm't becomes no more than any other corporate "person"), not

holding an official or public position.  - If you're still confused, go back to 1. b. above and

2. & 4.e. below.

 

(v) "The entire taxing and monetary systems are, hereby, placed under the U.C.C." The

Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, also see: Public Law 89-719, Legis. Hist., pg 3722, C.R.S.

5-1-106, U.S. V. Conrad Pub. Co., 589 F.2d 949 (1978) - being commercial in nature of

admiralty Jurisdiction. [Ratification Doctrine]

 

(vi) NOTE: Concerning “private” v. “public” via “Civil” Law - The civil law tradition makes a

sharp distinction between private and public law. Private law includes the rules governing

civil and commercial relationships such as marriage, divorce, and contractual

agreements. Public law consists of matters that concern the government: constitutional

law, criminal law, and administrative law. In many countries with civil law systems, two

sets of courts exist—those that hear public law cases and those that address matters of

private law. Remember, Civil Law is opposed to Common Law.

 

(vii) On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the

prior 150 years concerning "common law," in the Federal Government, "THERE IS NO

FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE

SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER

THEY BE LOCAL OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW

OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS" (See: Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304

U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188).

(viii) The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained

Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment

VII, were hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty

Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. 

"This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and

ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE

DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this change

would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN

ADMIRALTY." (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17; also see,

Federalist Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental

Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms;

July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52

U.S. 669.) [SEE 1 (a) above.]

 

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

The International Registry is the private law of UNIDROIT.

 

d. The Vatican Bank had owned Continental Bank, Chicago, whose sole stockholder

was Walter Commings, Jr, the Chief Judge of 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

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

 

f. All courts in the United States (corporate zone) are "for profit" corporations and listed

in Dunn and Bradstreet under the heading, "Also Trades As:"

 

(i) There is no debate that the free States of the Union once existed upon North American

soil. There is no debate that the People obtained the Rights of the King as Sovereigns

and Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty. There is no debate that said States of the Union, if

extant, are well hidden and non-accessible and the Sovereign People are now draped

with a blackened cloak of deceit, trickery, and true identity theft by those known as

"persons" of corporate nature, legal fictions, creatures of pretense in mind only.

 

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

the United States?

 

(A) On the political “side“, this is how, "…on the authority of the United States

Supreme Court, it is the complete subjugation [to bring under control; conquer; to

make subservient; enslave] of any political unit to the federal government of the

United States that makes a subdivision a territory". Binns v. United States, 194 U.S.

486; also The Coquitlam v. United States, 163 U.S. 346. [Boys and girls, can we all

say U.S.D.C.?]

 

Under the "Buck Act," 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has

created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of the several states. This area is

similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase,

conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this

"Federal area," and in Sec. 110(d): The term "State" includes any territory or

possession of the United States. The Buck act affects the actions of all federal

departments within the 50 states. There in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105, the federal

"State" is defined “(also known as), "The State of xxxxxxx." 

 

The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal "State

(of) [name of state] within a state."  We have numerous references to this.

 Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476,

97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O'Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d.

621, 625, 375, Pa. 440

 

Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28 U.S.C. § 30020(15)].  The

States are sub-corporations of the Fed, this aforementioned Corporation. 

[See 1934, State Compact Act; Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 101].

 

[Primary laws extended to Territories] by the United States was the Customs Act

of July 27, 1868 [15 Stat.L. 240; Rev. Stat. of 1873-1874, 2nd ed. Secs. 1954-

1976, page 342], extending over the Territory the laws of the United States with

reference to customs, commerce and navigation, and constituting it a customs

collection district.  Under this act important powers of regulation were conferred

upon the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

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

Governmental Agency”

 

Gone with the stroke of a pen, as of Mach 07, 2006, the Department of

Homeland Security will now utilize our nations non-profit churches as one of the

federal government's primary spying agencies. Is any further comment

necessary?

 

(C) But, how can “they” have access to our everyday functions to obtain control over

the innocent maneuvers we must negotiate daily?

 

“But, in fact and in law, such statutes are intended to be applied to those who

are here as "residents" in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause

of the Federal Constitution and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.” United

States v United Mine Workers of America, (1947) 67 S.Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S.

258.

 

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

Sec. 1621. Definitions

-STATUTE- For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term 'person' shall

include an individual, partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United

States.

Clarity must be brought to the subject of “State.” A vast difference exists between

a fiction, fable, legal entity, corporation of “some body politic” and the non-fiction,

real and true, body of Christians also known as a “state.” The following is placed

directly below to bring clarity to such:

The State is a person, and possesses as its property one territory.

As this one civil person consists of all the citizens, so its

property consists of all the individual property of the citizens. It is

una persona, unicum patrimonium. This unity of the person and

property of the state is expressed by the Common Law maxim, that

all lands were originally granted out by the sovereign [Yahweh,

God, our Father, through His Son, Yahshua, the Christ], and are

therefore holden, either mediately or immediately, in fee. In

apprehension of [Christian and Biblical] law, the [Christian] state

holds the soil of the whole territory as one estate [in Christ].

 

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

 

Absolutely, so, let's look at United States Congressional Record, March 17,

1993, Vol. 33. - "It is an established fact that the United States Federal

Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933,

48 stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt

and insolvent.  H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint

Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause

dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities

of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is

further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in

name only."...

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

 

In "the Court's" “Statement of Venue” (scilicet, ss) you may find written or

indicated that your “Plaintiff” is the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.  Though

this may appear that this may be an attempt to identify The United States of

America, it is fatally flawed and is, in nature, fact, and law, an attempted

enlargement, by means of fictions, of your non-existent granted powers and

authorities.  In a landmark, time honored, never disputed, and still distinguished

case we learn:

 

“The proper jurisdiction of the courts of Common Law is of things done

within the bodies of counties, and its further enlargements, by means of

fictions, can be considered only as ingenious subterfuges and devices, to

amplify their powers.”

 

Justice Story; 1815 De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; 7 Fed. Cas. 418; Case No.

1,776 (Reaffirmed 78 U.S. 1 to 396 U.S. 215).

 

We are bringing to your attention, at this time, the second part of this indisputable

political doctrine.  In order to clarify this statement, we have taken the liberty of

noticing synonyms to those words that may not be easily understood:

 

(Common-Language Clarification) “and its further enlargements

(expansions), by means of fictions (imaginary/legal assumptions), can be

considered only as ingenious (clever) subterfuges (concealments) and

devices (schemes), to amplify (exaggerate) their powers.”

 

(iii) Whoever said the “police” are there to protect and to serve? I said that; they’re here

to protect the political establishment from knowledgeable people and to “serve” the public

in the same way that a farmer gets his cow “serviced” to produce another calf. Are “they”

managing the herd? You bet they are.

23 CFR PART 1250 - 40% TO

POLITICAL SUBDIVISION PARTICIPATION IN STATE

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

40% Benefit to Local-Reg

Part 1250 gives 40 percent benefit to local police action through political subdivision

participation in State highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402 (b)(1)(C). 1250.4(b)

When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended by a political

subdivision, such expenditures are clearly part of the local share. [Note: previous to this it

was stated that the Federal funds dispersed are at least 40%.] Well, so much for “un-

biased” police.

 

(iv) The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people

alone ; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even

so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v Devito, 686 F2d 616.

 

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

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee

for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

 

Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):

"Failure  to  obey  the  command  of  a  police  officer  constitutes  a traditional  form of

breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey

the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution." 

 

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

53-54)

 

h. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.

(Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493).

 

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

1455 and 1493).

 

j. The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n.

4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44).

 

k. America is a British Colony. (the UNITED STATES is a CORPORATION, not a land mass,

and it existed before the revolutionary war and the British troops did not leave until 1796.)

Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for

Propagating the Gospel, &c. v. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS

Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.).

 

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

 

l. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213). The “United States” or District of

Columbia is owned by the Vatican Bank, lock stock and barrel, according to Tupper

Saussey’s archival research.

 

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

and 88-244 (December 1963).

 

n. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at

Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80). Actually, it was the Rothschild banks -

the Rothschild banks of England financed the North, - the Rothschild banks of France

financed the South. At that time, the King of England was also the King of France.

 

o. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph

Gulliani stated on C-Span that "New York City was the capital of the World" and he was

correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)).

 

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

 

SEE: Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America

Regarding The Headquarters Of the United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A 287

(1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that the "Agreement" regarding the

Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional

Record - Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in

the first instant.

 

q. The IRS is an Agency of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) not the U.S. Government.

(Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564,

Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.). See

also: Bretton Woods Agreement, as amended.

 

r. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the

United States government, even though the "US Government" held shares of stock in the

various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang, 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d 1239) ["They are also

corportions.]

 

s. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a

Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the

SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what

publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms.

You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS

Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2)).

 

t. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN.

(Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)

 

u. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis

301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.).

 

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

 

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

 

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

U.S.C. 285-288)

 

y. There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789. Judges do

not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC

v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178).

 

(i) And, do the “courts” enforce laws, or codes? Answer: Code is supreme. “Where both

the code and general principles are available, the former should always be considered

and applied if applicable.  By legislative declaration the code is the law, and if general

principles appear inconsistent, they must be considered displaced under AS 45.05.006. 

Moreover, even where inconsistency does not exist, the code must be regarded as

supreme; general principles even when consistent with the code are merely

supplementary“. Prince v. LeVan, 486 P.2d 959, 9 UCC Rep.Serv. 367 (1971).  Kelly v.

Miller, 575 P.2d 1221, 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 632 (1978)

 

(ii) But, are “judicial” courts necessary? Answer: The particular need for making the

judiciary independent was elaborately pointed out by Alexander Hamilton in the

Federalist, No. 78, from which we excerpt the following:

 

"The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.

The Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the

duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The Judiciary, on the contrary,

has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength

or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may

truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment." WE HAVE NOT

HAD THIS BALANCE OF POWER FOR A VERY LONG TIME!!

 

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

thing of the past.

 

The Reconstruction Acts took away the Lawful Standing, the Lawful Capacity, from the

Citizens and changed their Lawful Standing to “Legal Status”, from ELECTORS in a

THREE BRANCH GOVERNMENT as they were in Original Jurisdiction, to REGISTERED

VOTERS in a TWO BRANCH GOVERNMENT.

 

Want proof? Go to your local City Clerk and ask for a CERTIFIED COPY of your City

Charter in any State, or your local County Clerk for a CERTIFIED COPY of your County

Charter in any State. You will discover that ALL cities and counties in your State have

only two branches, the Executive and Legislative. There is no Judicial Branch!! The

Judicial Districts were all abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34th Congress.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1860, reviewing the Act of the 34th Congress, ordered ALL

the States in existence at that time to close down all the Court’s of law and all courts

complied in 1860. None of the Court’s of any State are created by the Constitution of their

State.

 

Every Court, from top to bottom, the justice of the peace courts, the police courts, the

municipal courts, the district courts and the circuit courts are ALL Statutory Courts

created by Statutes which were enacted by the Legislature and in fact, and law, merely

Administrative Agencies and only have the authority conferred by Statute.

 

z. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been

Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178).

 

(i) Modes of enforcement are erratic and arbitrary, a ground for prosecution is

anybody's guess, and the operation in the law is shrouded in mystery. In most any

issue at hand we might suggest the following:

 

"This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a

person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is

forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, and

because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill

v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242."

 

“When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and

that the improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say

the least, not happy.  More than once have judges of a court been indirectly

reminded that they too are taxpayers.

 

No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this commonwealth the Internal

Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials

which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called

political ends, be they high or low.  And a judge who knows the score is aware

that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a

close inspection of his returns.” Lord v. Kelley , 240 F.Supp. 167 (1965).

 

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

 

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

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

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the

criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

 

aa. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502).

 

bb. We (as corporate entities) own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our

children.(Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146, Senate

Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481).

 

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

 

dd. You (as corporate entities) can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you

are not a party to it. Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 14

Georgia 438, 520) That's why I rely on YOUR sworn Oath to keep my Rights as "secured

by the Constitution".

 

ee. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and

arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia,

477. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

 

However, please be mindful that, it is not until you get to Article 10 (PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630) -

Construction with other laws that you begin to see that the laws of the Republic were left in

place in Section 28:10-104; Laws not repealed. And, remember, in UCC 1-103.6 it clearly states

that all is to be done in accordance with the Common Law, so, remedy is available, although

hidden. This is how "they" brought in all of the Uniform Laws through D. C. and because all of the

states are subdivisions with interlocking directorates, all are simply municipal corporations of

D.C., and the D.C. code applies - if you are a corporation.

 

Ahhh, but, how does the “court system” see this? Many illustrations could be included, but, this

document does not have room. I will take only the space for one small example:

 

In 1976 our court system (what was left of it) was flushed away. Senate Bill 94-204

deals with the court system and Senate Bill 94-381 deals with Public Law. These

solidified changes in all operations of law by utilizing the words "construe and

construct". Slight deviations transfer meaning of words to fit their dolus agenda, such

as, "in" changed to "at", "at law" v. "in law".

 

Lawyers, judges, and the "court system" are now allowed to change any word they

wish to mean any thing they want. The "law" now means whatever they choose it to

mean. It is no longer a court of "law", but a court of "construe and construct".

 

Lawyers are the guilty culprits that make these devious changes. Often their answers

will reflect such changes. They intentionally misquote past cases, or other issues, as

facts by making such changes. Illegal? Not according to the above Senate Bills.

 

So, be aware, "they" can construe "their" copyrighted laws any way they wish to fit

the situation for their own betterment; and, you have no say about it. Can you use the

same copyrighted codes, laws, statutes, and regulations against them? Not unless

you have a license from the BAR. You will be in violation of copyright infringement

and punishment is mandatory.

 

Learn this - there is NO LAW in this nation, or the world, for that matter. There is

ONLY contract law. And, the only Bill of Rights the "courts" are required to take

cognizance of is the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th. Fair nuff?

 

Consider the following fact of “law”, which shall be reiterated further in this document:

"Judicial Notice" was commanded in the case of Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt,

324 U.S. 652, where the Supreme Court ruled that particular case was the last time it

would address "official definitions" of the term "United States", affirming that there are

two (2) distinctly different United States with two (2) opposite forms of

governments, both having the same congress. [“Opposite” means opposing!!]

 

2. All governments, and every agency thereof, are corporations, obtaining any jurisdictions from

their Charters, as per:

Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People

– Supreme Court of the United States 1795

a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of

the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The

imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and

attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as

well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than

corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v.

Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States

1795 -----; and,

 

b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate

Entities (remember, although all government agents and employees are 14th Amendment

citizens, this Sovereign is not);

 

(i) The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 - "A 'citizen of the

United States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary

of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th

Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4." and,

 

c. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773, "Therefore, the

U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and

franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity "", and,

 

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

 

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

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

Find the State code and you should find a State Agency that compares to the Coordinating

Council. These are not the only agencies that grant federal funds into the States.  This is only

the beginning:

 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 4 PARTS:

OFFICE OF JUSTICE  PROGRAMS

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

 

ALL OF THESE 4 DEPT. ARE HEADED BY AN ASSISTANT U.S. AG. WHO IS

APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.  HOW IS THAT FOR A MILITARY SET UP?

 

Criminal justice system has ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF:

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

enforcement agencies.  

(b)  the court of appeals, courts of common pleas, municipal courts, county courts,

and mayor’s courts when dealing with criminal cases.  

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

 

Title 42 USC sec. 3791(a)  States means any State of the US, DC, commonwealth Puerto

Rico, Units of Local Government means any city, county, township, parish, village or other

general purpose subdivision of a State.

 

Title 42 sec. 3732 reads

The State Coordinating Council has a Director appointed by the Governor. His duties are full

federal control over the States. Start to understand who you are really up against. Find the

flow of money.

 

Title 42 sec. 3732 reads: 

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

a Bureau of Justice Statistics (Bureau)

(b) The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, and with the

advice and consent of the Senate - - - The Director shall have final authority for all grants,

cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau.   The Director shall

report to the AG, through the Asst. AG

WOULD THIS NOT LEAD YOU TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS?

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

(2)  Certified copy of Oath

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

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

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

Once you establish that the courts, prosecutors, public defenders, auto registration, are all

claiming federal money for their operations then they commit fraud in the procedures they

use, it is actionable under FALSE CLAIMS ACT.

 

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

"States".

Also, Term “state” as used in rules providing when a state may appeal in a criminal case is all

inclusive and intended to include not only the state but its political subdivisions, counties and

cities. Spokane County v. Gifford, 9 Wash.App. 541, 513 P.2d 301, 302. Federal Government

is a “state” bound by all of provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Enright v. U.

S., D.C.N.Y., 437 F.Supp, 580 581.

Foreign State. A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered “foreign”

to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. ...  

 

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

 

a. All "U.S. citizens" were classified as "Enemies of the State" as made more explicit in our

"EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", in which we

demonstrated that, pursuant to Public Law 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976), the state of

national emergency has been officially terminated by the United States Congress, and

accordingly, any and all authorities which might have permitted Civil Courts of Summary

Jurisdiction ("Star Chambers") to exist in American federal courts were also effectively

terminated by said Public Law [See 42 U.S.C. 1986], and explicitly brought forward in

EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", with an additional eight

(8) Points. For brevity, only one point will be displayed:

 

Point 063 A. Affiant has no record or evidence to indicate that Affiant is a combatant

enemy of the State, or that Affiant is a belligerent of the government, as per; article by

Chuck Morse,  “Is the ‘National Emergency of FDR’ Still In Place?” that: “This was

a classic example of sleight of hand. In fact, Congress exempted all laws, based on

the emergency of 1933 that were already in place. Rather than being based on the

authority of the President under a ‘national emergency’ these federal laws have

now been codified as a permanent part of the U.S. Federal Code. Included among

the codified laws would be Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which

classifies the American citizen as an enemy of the government.” Therefore, although

the “national emergency” technically ended on September 14, 1976, when the 93rd

Congress passed H.R. 3884, the National Emergencies Termination Act (50 USC

1601, Public Law 94-412), because the last paragraph said that it didn’t apply to

any “authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended,” the classification

of a United States citizen still stands as enemy of the government, Affiant has no

record or evidence that Affiant should maintain any association with the label, definition,

or designation of a US citizen, or any similar appellation.

 

b. Under Act of Congress, May 31, 1878, c. 146, 20 Stat. 87, 31 U.S.C.A. § 404, which

enacts that notes of the United States, issued during the war of the Rebellion, under acts of

congress declared them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, and since the close of

the war redeemed and paid in gold coin at the treasury, shall be reissued and kept in

circulation, is constitutional, and notes so reissued are a legal tender.

 

This idea supports that, under emergency - the War of Rebellion (Civil War), the printing of

Notes is Constitutional. Of course in the actual theater of war, the Constitution is suspended,

and some of the Executive Orders of the War Between the States are still in full force and

effect.

 

So, bear in mind that: 

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

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

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

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

currency.                               

 

4. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., page 1420, "A mixed war is one which is made on one

side by public authority, and the other by mere private persons."

 

a. We have determined that a "mixed war" is a "Commercial War"; and, a "public authority"

exercises "Private Law"; to the benefit of corporate strategy, which is not unlawful if not

exercised against a "Private Person", or "Private Man".

 

b. When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the

Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact

legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of

States because it exists solely by virtue of the charter - compact - constitution that created it.

The Constitution does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form

of Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v.

Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F. Supp. 925 (1944); Long v.

District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus,

368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others).

 

In Noah Webster's dictionaries, pre 1969, in the abbreviation section you will find U.S.C.

defined as United States of Colombia. And, then in the American Heritage Dictionary, the

definition of Columbia you will find: Columbia, the United States. This notation is to "de-fuse"

any assumption/presumption that this Affiant is "subject to", or a "citizen of" any such

extension/trespass against the mind, will, and conscience of Affiant, within, or without, the

United States, onshore, or offshore.

 

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

Secretary of the Treasury???

 

72d Congress Sess. II CHS. 160-162

MARCH 1, 1933

[CHAPTER 162]

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

[Public, No. 405.]

Washington City post office.

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

Vol. 30 P. 614.

U.S.C., p. 1306

AN ACT

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

codes]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40,

sec. 285), is hereby amended to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the Washington City post office and the

additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and

control.

Approved, March 1, 1933.

 

d. The U.S. Attorney General is the "permanent member" to the Secretariat of the Interpol

Operation, and the Secretary of Treasury the "alternate permanent member." Under Article

30 of the "Constitution and General Regulation of Interpol, "22 USC 263(a), the agents are

required to renounce their allegiance to their respective countries and expatriate.

Consequently, ALL "public servants," officials, Congressmen politicians, judges, attorneys,

law enforcement personnel, the States and their various agencies, are express agents of the

Foreign Principals who have bankrupted and stolen the United States (of America) through

the paper money banking swindle and other frauds and treacheries. And, why is the

Secretary of the Treasury also known as the US Governor for the International Monetary

Fund?

 

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

 

(i) All states in the Union were reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the

corporation known as the UNITED STATES, hence creating a new (and,

different/alternate) union of American STATES. UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28,

3002(15)(A), basically reiterates that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. What was

not said in 1871, but was implicit, was what is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(B) &

(C): That all departments of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION are part of the

corporation. The "Corporation" and its' subsidiaries have suffered at least three

bankruptcies.

 

Much later (Conference of Governors, 1945) the legal fictions called "State of YOUR

STATE" confirmed and "pledged" what was not theirs to pledge, the sweat, labor,

engineering, technology, and future children of We The People, to support the indebted

legal fiction, "UNITED STATES". The full "Changing of the Guard" (state name change

status) was accomplished in, I think, 1968.

 

(ii) The other united States is the Continental united States. This is the country founded

by the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United

States (actually, Canada was part of the original charter). The original, organic

Constitution had no title, the Preamble was the "title". When the "constitution" was used

as the corporate charter for the Act of February 21, 1781, it was given a "title", -

Constitution of the United States of America, and that IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, as in

the NAME of a vessel. Please note the distinct difference and meaning in the two words

"of" and "for". Of means something belongs to something, or someone, else -

"Constitution of (belonging to, possession) the United States of America", v.

"Constitution for (the seating of a Tribunal, seating of judgment) the United States of

America".

 

So, what difference does it make if they changed one tiny little word? You'd better learn.

If you don't want to learn, go back to sleep - I apologize whenever I disturb any of the

"pajama people".

 

f. And, how did the International Bankers become the "receivers in bankruptcy", but first,

remember, the only ones put at risk are the ones that turned in their gold to the

"Securities Intermediaries! (So, how can "they" rightly claim the position of "receivers of the

bankruptcy"??)

 

(i) Please observe the "sleight of hand" as the International Bankers slip in to

"assume" the position of "Creditor", without contributing any money, whatsoever;

pay special attention to the fact that there is a "statutory" pledge and they

assumed position as receiver:

 

Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to

payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.

 

It says, “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public

debt” and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the

public, [you and me], as “the net public debt”.

 

Title 18 Sect. 8 defines ''obligation of the United States'' to include……“ all

certificates of indebtedness …..drawn upon authorized officers of the United

States issued under any Act of Congress,” which of course includes the Secretary of

the Treasury, And of course includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its

issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that

portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of the

UNITED STATES.

 

(ii) We must get more specific to unravel the threads of this web of deceit. In the 14th

Amendment (which all "public" gubm't employees are party to) it plainly states:

 

The validity of the public debt...  ...shall not be questioned, and further states, “the

Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and

further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [non-

14th Amendment citizens], as “the NET public debt.”  

 

So, "public debt" is the charges against me by the several and many corporations

that "service" me (government and non-government, but all corporate), and the

"net public debt" is the interest due or accrued, which is to be returned to the

source, (me) as Equity for my losses incurred by supporting the Beast (turning in

the Lawful Money - Gold). Referenced to 14th Amendment, Section 4.

 

I must reiterate that it is the 14th Amendment citizen and the Treasury Department that

is not to question "The validity of the public debt..."  (...shall not be questioned).

 

(iii) The question of "Communal Debt" arises and must be answered to clarify the issues.

The Communal Debt was, and is, the debt of the Corporation(s), in particular,

governments and the expense of running the same. Since the de jure governments are in

position, but no offices are filled, there can be no expenses for the same. The de facto

institutions of government have no "negative" expenses, as they hire only qualified

pirates and thieves.

 

(iv) The next question that must be addressed is that of "Communal Credit". Understand

this, there was, and is, no Communal Credit. It was the Private Man under duress,

coercion, threat of imprisonment, loss of life, etc., that delivered his gold to the thieves, it

was not the corporate entities that turned in the gold.

 

(v) I am convinced that there is a one million dollar ($1,000,000) limitation on each

occurrence that I may make "request for discharge" against the net public debt:

 

Title 26 USC section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate amount

treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed $1,000,000

($500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return)."

 

(vi) I must address the issue of what, or how much, in the "form of money" was created to

bring about this majestic public debt. First, let me state that "money" is the ONLY creation

of mankind. Next, please be informed that only the debt money is created, never the

interest.

 

And, you can not pay a debt instrument with a debt instrument (a "bill" with a Federal

Reserve Note), you can only discharge the debt - set it off into the future, so the debt

accrues and climbs to a higher level with each use.

 

Now, in reference to (ii) above stating that “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay

interest due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates a portion of the total

public debt which is held by the public, [non-14th Amendment citizens], as “the NET

public debt,” when you and I direct the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge, or setoff,

our (non 14th Amendment citizen) debts, it is the accrued interest returning to its'

source, and reducing the public debt in the process.

 

5. We have studied, in depth, the Trading With The Enemies Act, TWEA T 50 APPENDIX App.,

and found the most recent edit of Title 50a of the US Code was released by the Law Revision

Counsel - LRC - (http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on 2007-02-13  ..

.and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Fri Feb 16 04:33:56 2007.

Therefore, our information seems to be most current.

 

a. We have determined that Sections 7, 9, and 16 of TWEA in Title 50 APPENDIX App.

provides us with remedy and recourse; and, under said document, we confirm:

 

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

 

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

 

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

States of America.

 

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

 

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

Hungary, or Austria-Hungary ancestry.

 

(ii) We ARE Missouri Nationals, Missourians, of Scottish, Irish, British, and an

indeterminate percentage of American Cherokee and other American Indians lineage. All

of our parents were of similar percentage of European and Indian stock. We exercise

Right of Claim as Remaindermen and heir to all assets belonging to our natural parents.

 

(iii) Our declaration of citizenship (pursuant to Trading With Enemy Act, TWEA) is

upon the land  as Missourians (not within any corporate entity). 

 

(iv) Our proper political standing is established in International law, the law of nations

and the treaty of nations, which guarantees every man the right to make political self

determination, which may vary from time to time. We are properly seated in Office of We

The People.

 

c. TWEA states that; after one has proper standing, and has established a relationship with

the Comptroller, they have a duty to protect me. They are bonded to do so and they have

taken an oath to do so. You have been properly Noticed of:

 

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

above.

 

(ii) Notice has been served on the original registrars, being, they are the original

fiduciary, that they, as per; UCC 1 and UCC 3 filings mentioned previously to effectively

function to alleviate the distresses and eliminate the Breach of the Peace, which is the

Highest Crime under International Law.

 

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

 

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

(i) to be an intervention by a third person, demanding judicature in the cause against the

plaintiff, who has chosen to commence his action out of claimant's court. 2 Wilson's R.

409.

 

(ii) It is a question of jurisdiction between the two courts Fortesc. R. 157; 5 Vin. Abr. 588;

and not between the plaintiff and defendant, as in the case of plea to the jurisdiction, and

therefore it must be demanded by the party entitled to conusance, or by his

representative, and not by the defendant or his attorney. Id. ibid. A plea to the

jurisdiction must be pleaded in person, but a claim of conusance may be made by

attorney. 1 Chit. Pl. 403.

 

(iii) There are three sorts of conusance. 1. Tentere placita, which does not oust another

court of its jurisdiction, but only creates a concurrent one. 2. Cognitio placitorum, when

the plea is commenced in one court, of which conusance belongs to another. 3. A

conusance of exclusive jurisdiction; as that no other court shall hold pica, &c. Hard. 509

Bac. Ab. Courts.

 

b. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1531 says, "In essence, all court decisions

are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated

with it."

 

c. In Erie Rail Road –v- Thompkins (1938), the U.S Supreme Court Ruled: “The United

States is a Bankrupt Nation in Receivership to this Nation’s Creditors;” And, “All Law

is Commerce!”  Please see EXHIBIT - Commercial Crimes.

 

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

entirety:

 

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

Definition and General Considerations

 

A foreign corporation is one that derives it existence solely from the laws of another

state, government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in

statutes, to designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another

state or a corporation created by or under the laws of a foreign country.

 

At common law, a corporation may be deemed a person, and statutes providing that

corporations shall be deemed persons include foreign corporations.

 

Generally, the status of a foreign corporation as either foreign or domestic is

determined solely by the place of its origin, without reference to the residence of its

stockholders, or incorporators, or the place where the business is transacted.

 

However, by express enactment, a corporation, a majority of whose stock is held by

aliens, is, for some purposes, deemed to be a foreign corporation. A domestic

corporation does not become a foreign corporation merely by accepting from another

state a grant of the right to own property and to transact business in such other state.

 

Federal Corporations

A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation

rather than a foreign corporation. The United States government is a foreign

corporation with respect to a state.

 

Section 884. Status

A corporation exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of law, and where that

law ceases to operate, the corporation can have no existence. A state cannot

impose one of its artificial creatures on another sovereignty nor confer on its

corporators powers which they can lawfully exercise beyond its jurisdiction.

Rather, it must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another

sovereignty.

 

 

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

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

 

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

penalties.

 

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

vehicles")

 

7. BE INFORMED, because of Interlocking Directorates of many agencies, offices, and

governmental employees working in concert and collusion, the resultant effect, due to the

usurpation of authority, excess of jurisdiction, or lack of all jurisdiction, not granted by the

Lawful Man, is the experiencing of major pains and penalties and other crippling injuries,

as per:

 

a. While, on its face, "executive measures" with the red and blue lights may seem to be a way

to deter crime, implementing statutes actually gives incentives to judges, police officers and

district attorneys to rope as many people into the court process as possible. Like any other

commission structure, it is a numbers game. The higher the number of defendants created,

the higher the payout for the police officer, the judge, and the District Attorney. [SEE 1997

Court Funding Act]

 

b. Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by

Government officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of

Olmstead vs. U.S . 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared:

 

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be

subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a

Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe

the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.

 

For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If

the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every

man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the

administration of the law, the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution.

Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should resolutely set its face."

 

c. McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001) "government officials in

general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal

motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone

who takes an oath of office knows - or should know - that much."

 

d. "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer

of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

 

e. 18 USC 31, (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of

carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for

commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and

property, or property or cargo.

 

f. 18 USC 31, (10) Used for commercial purposes.--- The term "used for commercial

purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge, or other

consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking

intended for profit.

 

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting

administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has

subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency,

by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US

618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal.† 640.

 

“As the majority states, failure to verify the signature of the arresting officer on the

Uniform Violations Complaint precluded the district court from being vested with subject

matter jurisdiction and from being empowered to act. Therefore, all proceedings in the

trial court are rendered void.” Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 (Okl. Cr. 1990).

 

g. "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to

be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being

involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges

him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal

or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” 

Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73).

 

h. The Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle even for limited purposes of questioning

its occupants unless the police officer has a founded suspicion of criminal conduct. U.S. V.

Ramirez & Sandoval, 872 F2d. 1392.

 

i. Harassment by threat of fraudulent proceedings prohibited: Source: Statute at Large

1997, ch 45, § 10; Statute at Large 2005, ch 120, § 228.

(Text of section effective July 1, 2006) Harassment by threat of fraudulent legal

proceedings or liens prohibited--Misdemeanor--Subsequent violation felony. Any person

who harasses any other person by sending or delivering, or causing to be sent or

delivered, any letter, paper, document, notice of intent to bring suit, or other notice or

demand that simulates any form of court or legal process and that threatens the other

person, directly or indirectly, with incarceration, monetary fines, or penalties, or with the

imposition of a counterfeit lien on the real or personal property of the other person is

guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of this

section is a Class 6 felony. Lack of belief in the jurisdiction or authority of the state or of

the United States is no defense to a prosecution under this section.

 

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear

absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped

authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known

to the judge, no excuse is permissible ." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.

 

j. After all the above issues are brought into the light of Truth, there is but ONE

JUDGMENT CALL for those at ground, grass roots, level and that is to STOP THE

PIRATES AT "CRUISER" LEVEL. Educate them as best you can. Yes, you can starve the

corporate beast. Convert them one by one. (Just bear in mind that a snake is a snake. When

in doubt, ask yourself how many of your family that you love have been destroyed by an

"extra close shave - the sheering of the Sheeple." How many of your paychecks have gone to

the Beast and how many of your homes have gone to the international bankers thru fraud and

deceit?)

 

If you do not comprehend that every “patrol vehicle” is a Pirate Cruiser, then, go back and

read the above until you do. I’m not saying that all pirates are bad. Most pirates are nothing

more than “privateers” contracted to the “Crown”. Most are just not informed. Many actually

believe they are doing a service for the community. Just remember, if you have a cow and

you want a calf, you call a farmer with a bull to “service” your cow. Point clear?

 

 

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

NOTICE TO THE AGENT.

 

Because of Interlocking Directorates and networking computerized files, you are charged

with the responsibilities, duties, and directives to:

 

a. Assure that all related agents/agencies receive verification of this documentation,

including, but not limited to:

 

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

(ii) Secretary of State, United States

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

(iv) U.S. Attorney General

(v) Associate U.S. Attorney General

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

 

b. Accomplish the task of:

 

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

database

(ii) Placing our Diplomatic Standing in National Crime Information System –

presented explicitly in the National Crime Information Center.

 

BOTTOM LINE:

 

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

"Biblical Law at "Common Law" supersedes all laws, and "Christianity is custom, custom

is Law." Robin v. Hardaway 1790.

 

 

Habakuk, chapter 2 NASV: Then the Lord answered me and said, "Record the vision, and

inscribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run.  For it is yet for the appointed time; it

hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail.  Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it

will not delay…

 

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

 

Will not all of these take up a taunt-song against him, even mockery and insinuations against him,

and say, 'Woe to him who increases what is not his -- for how long -- and makes himself rich with

loans?  Will not your creditors rise up suddenly, and those who collect from you awaken?  Indeed,

you will become plunder for them.  Because you have looted many nations, all the remainder

[remnant] of the peoples will loot you -- because of human bloodshed and violence done to the

land, to the town and all its inhabitants."

 

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

 

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

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20220

 

 

 

LETTER ROGATORY, ENTITLEMENT ORDER, AND PAYMENT ORDER

 

 

This Letter Rogatory, Entitlement Order, and Payment Order is presented by John-Quincy:

Jones, seated in Office of We The People, looking to the highest known Person in venue of the

Treasury Department of the United States government, Rosa Gumataotao Rios, requesting that

Rosa Gumataotao Rios, examine the contents of the attached package, make any minor

adjustments to the verbiage that may be necessary keeping the "spirit" of the intent unchanged,

and notify me if any major changes are necessary.

 

I am in hopes that this package will suffice to accomplish the desired goals of bringing equity to

this Private Man and assisting the operations of United States government by providing deposits

and other support to the administration of said government to diminish the national debt.

 

I, John-Quincy: Jones, Entitlement Holder, do hereby, by way of this communication appoint

Rosa Gumataotao Rios in Treasurer’s commercial capacity as Securities Intermediary to

process the annexed Entitlement Order under this reduced-to-writing instruction as an effective

Payment Order.

 

Points and Authorities: UCC 8-102(7), UCC 4-105, 12 CFR 229.2, 12 CFR 210.2, 12 USC

1813(1)(A), Black’s 5th page 133, UCC 8-501 through 511, UCC 3-105(a), UCC 8-102(8), UCC 8-

102(a)(15)(iii).

 

Your assistance is requested to further expedite the desired intent of this package and is deeply

appreciated.

 

 

EXHIBIT H

 

MEMORANDUM OF RECORD

 

TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT

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

 

VERIFIED OATH PURGATORY (A.K.A. Testamentary Affidavit)

           

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:  Oath Purgatory, “A purgatory oath is one by which one destroys the

presumptions which were against him, for his is then said to purge himself, when he removes the

suspicions which were against him; as, when a man is in contempt for not attending court as a

witness, he may purge himself of the contempt, by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse.”

 

To whom these presents shall come, BE INFORMED!

 

The undersigned, Affiant, sui juris, heretofore having properly identified Himself to be a native

born Natural American Free Inhabitants, propagated from Lawful Wedlock, a Legitimate Born

Child (not a “natural born child” having a/any government for a father), jus soli, bearing true faith

and allegiance thereto; a sovereign elector inhabiting The Missouri Republic, enjoying the, "right

of soil," "right of property," "right of preemption," “right of exemption," and all other Rights

Unalienable (Rights Not In A Lien-Able Position), as publicly published and thus declared nunc

pro tunc, and by virtue of the appertaining thereto, to wit:

 

I specifically deny that I have granted, donated or given any legal title to any purported, implied,

resulting, charitable or other trust administered by the UNITED STATES, the UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA, or the STATE OF MISSOURI. I further specifically deny that I ever had or have

any intent to create a cestui que trust, whereby John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, is settlor, donor,

or grantor of any res to which a trust wherein JOHN Q. JONES, the “Vessel,” is a beneficiary

having a territorial relationship with UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or

STATE OF MISSOURI .

 

I specifically deny that I ever had, or now have, intent to pledge, gift, assign, act as settler, donor

or grantor of any res, which would attach to my children, my biological property gifted to me by

the Creator, as subject to condition precedent, thereby John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, is free

born upon the soil of the Nation of Missouri.

 

I specifically deny that there is any law that can compel me to accept or assign liabilities imposed

by the compelled use of a legal personality; and, I specifically claim ownership and right to use of

my own properties, my own commercial vehicles and devices and my own natural amenities from

whatever resource derived.

 

 

EXPLICIT – Corporate and “citizen” denial

Due to the convoluted, distorted, mis-informed, deceptive, and war-like attributes of Legislated

Aggression against Claimant/Grantor and other People upon the Soil of North America, Grantor

explicitly denies being a corporation or a citizen of any corporate agency or activity and Grantor

vehemently rebuts any presumption/assumption that is part and/or parcel to any confusion of

“citizenry.”

There are three different and distinct forms of the “United States” as revealed by this case law:

“The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely

different things , depending on the context.”  Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652

(1945) & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) & United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 3

Wheat. 336 336 (1818)  

The issues of this instant matter IS that Claimant/Grantor is NOT a “citizen” of any corporate

structure; the issues are NOT as to whether there are three different "United States" operating

within the same geographical area, and one "United States" operating outside the Constitution

over its own territory (in which it has citizens belonging to said "United States"), were settled in

1901 by the Supreme Court in the cases of De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 and Downes v.

Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes supra, Justice Harlan dissented as follows:

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we

have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained

under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside

and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are

accustomed to exercise." [Downes supra, page 380, emphasis added]

 

This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, with citizens

of the "United States" belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the

Constitution, was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258

U.S. 298, wherein that Court affirmed, at page 305, that the Constitution does not apply outside

the limits of the 50 States of the Union, quoting Downes supra and De Lima supra; that, under

4:3:2, the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and the citizens of the

"United States" residing therein .

"In its governmental or public character, it represents the state, while in the other it is a mere

private corporation. As a political institution, the municipality occupies a different position, and is

subject to different liabilities from those which are imposed upon the private corporation. But

because these two characters are united in the same legal entity, it does not follow that the

shield which covers the political equally protects the private corporation." STRAND v.

STATE., 16 Wn.(2d) 107, 116 (January 6, 1943). 

 

All Federal Agents/Agencies, Bureaus, Departments, and all Courts and their officers have failed

to state which United States they represent, since they can represent only one, and it’s under

Federal Debt Collection Procedure, as a corporation, the United States, Inc., and its satellite

corporations sometimes referred to as “STATE OF XXXXXX,” have no jurisdiction over

Claimant/Grantor, an American national and a belligerent claimant. Claimant/Grantor hereby

asserts the right of immunity inherent in the 11th amendment:  “The judicial power shall not be

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the

United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens of any Foreign State.” 

 

Of a subordinate nature adding confusion to conflict there are two (2) separate and distinct

national governments and a federal government;

 

A national government is the government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing

complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is

distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. 6 Ohio St.

342, 1856 WL 59 (Ohio)

 

There is a circus of conflicting deceitful codes that act as the operating procedures of the

FEDERAL CORPORATION: the United States. Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28

U.S.C. § 30020(15)].  The States are sub-corporations of the Federal United States, the

aforementioned Corporation.  [See 1934, State Compact Act; Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 101].

 

 

 

Claim of Status – Free Inhabitant

 

Grantor claims the status of free inhabitant (rather than a superficial “citizen”) of the United

States under Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 Article IV.

 

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation as the first constitution* of the

United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all

thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of

sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state

governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and

eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution

replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. *Christian G. Fritz, American

Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge

University Press, 2008) at p. 131 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3 (noting that "Madison, along with

other Americans clearly understood" the Articles of Confederation "to be the first federal

Constitution.")

Government information (Library of Congress) may be only superficially true. The Library of

Congress version of what happened to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is the

official explanation of why the un-informed populace has no other choice than to be a “citizen” of

the United States. As the national library for the United States, the Library of Congress cannot

claim the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 have been repealed, as there is simply

be no documentary evidence of that or the "repealed" word would have been used.

 

Many say that Federal and State governments would like to see the Articles of Confederation of

November 15, 1777 permanently removed from the Organic Laws of the United States of

America, but it cannot happen, as the Articles of Confederation is the only real source of

government power, which is exercised by the enactment of written law. Unwritten law applies to

everyone, but written law only applies to government and its citizens.

 

The Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 limited government in America.

 

I reiterate, Grantor claims the status of free inhabitant.

 

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION OF NOVEMBER 15, 1777 WERE ONLY REPLACED BY

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Grantor chooses the Law Common as handed down through the generations and documented in

the Holy Writ, as evidenced elsewhere within these annexed documents and claims exemption

from arrest for, both, Himself and his various properties (including, but not limited to Grantor’s

Exchangeable Energy in the form of Currency), as per:

 

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his

private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the

state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation,

so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives

nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by

the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from

him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a

refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or

seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not

trespass upon their rights." HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

 

 

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

 

EXHIBIT “F”

 

DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER TO TREASURER OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA

 

 

The Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section

1), is a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee.

 

The President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract that the President

(executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office . That is

different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his

capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office . He has a constitutional oath .

 

This supporting document is in reference to a “Pre-existing Contract” known as a “Certificate of

Live Birth,” to wit:

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

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

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

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

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

2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value (signature on application for birth

certificate) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction

(distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the

Constitution).

3. A person (a state, i.e., Missouri, etc.) gives value (Constitution) for rights (to be

recognized internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for

satisfaction (acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to

pay international creditors).

4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value (Article VI oath) for rights (to hold

an office) as security (promise to support “this” constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of

a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

5. A person (a state, i.e., Missouri, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for

rights (to be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise

to abide by terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a

preexisting claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy).

6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as

security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction

(performance) of a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the

Constitution).

 

Make a note of this – The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath , is the

ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the

HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate – Certificated Security). It is the holder who acquires a

security interest in the instrument, whereupon, I ACCEPT the instrument. It is not the issuer who

has the security interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability.

 

 

16 CJS Constitutional Law §229, Rights of, and Accounting by, Trustees and Guardians;

 

“Rights acquired by trustees under a private, active trust are vested, but the rights of trustees who

are merely public officials exercising public functions or who are naked trustees of a passive trust

are not vested.  A guardian has no vested right to be governed by the law in force at the time of

his appointment and qualification.” [emphasis added]

 

And, Further:

 

As per: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371 "As the use of private corporate

commercial paper, debt currency or securities is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of

the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the

area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of

a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity

cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other

corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement

between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to

produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands

called statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities

entirely separate from government."

 

And, as per: Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93 “Federal

employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation,

failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which

unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause

violations.”

 

And, as per: Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C.- So. Dist. CA. "History is clear

that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law

rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government."

 

And, as per: Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend

to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are

sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that

they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.”

 

And, as per: Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)"The People of a State are entitled to all

rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."

 

And, as per: CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793

pp471-472 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the

sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but

themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the

sovereignty."

 

And, as per: Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights

as a Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the

protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land long

antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of

law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does

not trespass upon their rights.”

 

 

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

 

EXHIBIT G - Parson

 

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)

Sir William Blackstone

A PARSON, persona ecclesiae, is one that has full possession of all the rights of a parochial

church. He is called parson, persona, because by his person the church, which is an invisible

body, is represented; and he is in himself a body corporate, in order to protect and defend the

rights of the church (which he personates) by a perpetual succession.

A man can possess the rights of a church through the fiction known as "artificial corporate

personality" that is, designating the man a corporation sole. In the beginning as explained by

Blackstone, in exchange for the spiritual care of the inhabitants, the parson was compensated

with the assets of the church which is in essence the vesting in him of the church's property

rights. Now in order for these property rights to be available for the next parson for compensation,

the rights could not be vested in the man in his "natural person" capacity for upon his death these

rights might descend to his heirs and therefore the rights of the church was vested in him in the

capacity of a [corporation sole]. By incorporating the parson and his successors a corporation

sole, "all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved entire to the successor: for the present

incumbent, and his predecessor who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and the same

person; and what was given to the one was given to the other also."

"At the original endowment of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the

parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish, were vested in the then parson by the

bounty of the donor, as a temporal recompense to him for his spiritual care of the inhabitants, and

with intent that the same emoluments should ever afterwards continue as a recompense for the

same care. But how was this to be effected? The freehold was vested in the parson ; and, if we

supposed it vested in his natural capacity, on his death it might descend to his heir, and would be

liable to his debts and incumbrances: or, at best, the heir might be compellable, at some trouble

and expense, to convey these rights to the succeeding incumbent. The law therefore has wisely

ordained, that the parson quatenus parson, shall never die, any more than the king; by

making him and his successors a corporation. By which means all the original rights of the

parsonage are preserved entire to the successor: for the present incumbent, and his predecessor

who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and the same person; and what was given to the

one was given to the other also."

"Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who

are incorporated by law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly

that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the king is

a sole corporation: so is a bishop: so are some deans, and prebendaries, distinct from their

several chapters: and so is every parson and vicar."

Today the use of a corporation sole is slightly different; it is not simply for the holding of property.

As we seen earlier, a church is a corporation/legal person and as such it is capable of holding

property and entering into contracts. However, since a corporation can't act on its own it needs a

legal personality (agent) to do these things. That personality (agent) is the corporation sole. In

short, by designating the parson as a corporation sole, the parson is able to carry out the

business of the church in "person" (agent). 

END OF:

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)

Sir William Blackstone

 

By attaching a body corporate (corporation sole which represents the OFFICE of PARSON and

its UNDERTAKINGS) to the body natural of a man, in his dual capacity of artificial person and

natural person, he is able to protect the rights of the church through perpetual succession.

 

Black’s 1st Law Dictionary

CORPORATION SOLE. A corporation consisting of one person only, and his successors in some

particular station, who is incorporated by law in order to give his successors in office some legal

capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they

could not have had. In this sense the sovereign in England is a sole corporation, so is a bishop,

so are some deans distinct from their several chapters, and so is every parson and vicar. A

corporation sole consists of a single person, who is made a body corporate and politic, in order to

give him some legal capacities and advantages and especially that of perpetuity; as a bishop,

dean, etc.

 

The Overseers of the Poor of the City of Boston v. David Sears 39 Mass  (2Pick) 122 at 128

(1839)

". . .In all these aspects, the distinction between an aggregate and sole corporation, growing out

of the different modes of constitution and forms of action, is striking and obvious. A bishop or

parson acting in a corporate capacity and holding property to him and his successor in right of

office, has no need of a corporate name, he requires no particular, he performs all legal acts

under his own seal, In his own name and name of office; his own will alone regulates his acts

and he has no occasion for a secretary, for he need not keep a record of his acts, need no

treasurer, for he has no personal property except the rents and proceeds of the corporate estate ,

and these he takes to his own use when received. By-laws are unnecessary , for he regulates

his own action, by his own will and judgment , like any other individual acting in his own right .

But it is not necessary to pursue the comparison into all its details; the points suggested are

sufficient to show the legal distinctions between the two classes of corporations."

 

 

 

Professor L.C.B. Gower, The Principles of Modern Company Law (1954) Stevens & Sons,

London, p. 62:

  ... the idea behind the corporation sole is the same as that underlying the corporation aggregate,

the personification of the undertaking as opposed to the natural persons operating it from time to

time.  In the case of the corporation aggregate it is the undertaking which is personified to

distinguish it from its members; in the case of the corporation sole it is the office (of bishop,

vicar or the like) which is personified to distinguish it from the individual holder from time to

time.  It should be stressed, however, that the distinction between the two kinds of corporation

has no necessary connection with the number of members; a company is a corporation

aggregate, not sole, even though it may be a one-man company.

[It is to note however that when a man ACTS in the character of the OFFICE, the law treats the

body natural and the body corporate as being one and the same.

 

 

John Doe v. Bennett, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436, 2004 SCC 17 (CanLII)

The purpose for which ecclesiastical corporations sole like St. George's are created is to serve as

a point of legal interface between the Roman Catholic Church and the community at the diocesan

level. The Church is at one and the same time a spiritual presence in the community and a

secular actor in the community. The task of the corporation sole is to provide a bridge between

the two spheres for the diocese. On a secular level, the Church interacts with members of the

diocesan community in a host of ways. It carries on a variety of religious, educational and social

activities. It makes contracts with employees. It transports parishioners. It sponsors charitable

events. It purchases and sells goods and property. To do these things, it requires a legal

personality. That personality is the corporation sole. To restrict the purpose of the corporation

sole to the acquisition, holding and administration of property is to capture only a portion of the

purpose it is intended to serve and to artificially truncate its functions.

The role of the corporation sole as a legal interface between the Church and the community is set

forth in the legislation creating it, An Act to Incorporate the Roman Catholic Bishop of St.

George's, S.N. 1913, c. 12. The Act, quite simply, incorporates the office of bishop, in all its

aspects. It does not confine itself to the holding of property belonging to the diocese.

 

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

 

 

Trust Receipts – from 89 C.J.S. Trust 

 

In trade practice and by the support of the judicial authority, a trust receipt might equally be used

in connection with a domestic transaction as it is used in an importation of merchandise.—In re

James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y. 30 F.2d 555, 557.

 

Trust receipt.  A well-known instrument of commerce, a useful and convenient method of

financing commercial transactions.  It is an independent security devise employed in commercial

credit transactions, frequently employed in the importing trade, and also in the marketing of

automobiles, and the same principles govern whether the transaction is domestic or the financing

of imports.

            As used in commerce by credit and financial agencies it is regarded as a security

instrumentality which resembles a pledge, a chattel mortgage, or a conditional sales contract,

but is exactly none of these mediums of trade and credit.  Some of the chief differences are the

absence of actual or immediate delivery, or change of possession, the removal of notice,

recordation or verification requirements, and the retention of title in the vendor .  By means of

the trust receipt, title to goods passes directly from the manufacturer or seller to the banker or

lender who, as owner, delivers the goods to the dealer in whose behalf he is acting secondarily,

and to whom title goes ultimately when the primary right of the banker has been satisfied.

 

A trust receipt purports to vest and retain title in the holder of the receipt, and it is generally held

that rights incident to such title and ownership will be recognized not only as against the one

giving the receipt, but his receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, and creditors generally, unless the

contract is itself violative of local statutes.

            Trust receipts have generally been held not subject to recording or filing acts, the reason

being that such statutes are to prevent secret liens on property of persons who have had prior

possession and ownership of the property, and it is for the same reason that holders of trust

receipts have been allowed to prevail against the ultimate purchaser or his trustee in bankruptcy

only where the title of the holder was derived from some one other than the debtor.

 

Whether the trust receipt transactions is tripartite type (where the finance company (in New York

City) advances the funds for the purchase of the chattel, purchases it and receives title to it from

the manufacturer, and delivers possession to the dealer, who gives his trust receipt (street name)

to the finance company) or it is the bipartite type (where the dealer has purchased and received

title directly from the manufacturer and gives his receipt to the finance company) matters not at

all.  The Uniform Trust Receipts Act governs receipt transactions.

 

Notes: (Also from 89 C.J.S. Trust)

            Thoroughly established.

            Trust receipts, because of their beneficial features in quick credit transactions and their

frequent judicial concern, have become thoroughly established and identified in business and law.

—In re Boswell, D.C. Cal, 20 F.Supp. 748, 751

            The origin and development of the trust receipt as a convenient means of financing

importations, and its later application to domestic transactions, is exhaustively discussed by the

Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in the case of In re Fountain Inc., N.Y., 282 F.2d 912, 913.

            Method of securing mercantile loans.

            The essential character of the trust receipts has long been understood by the mercantile

and banking community.  Such ‘trust receipts’ include the long-established method of securing

mercantile loans by a transaction in which the lender, having no prior title to the goods upon

which the loan is to be given, and without having possession, which remains in the borrower,

lends his money to the borrower upon the security of the goods, which the borrower is privileged

to sell clear of the lien, he agreeing to pay all or part of the proceeds of the sale to the lender. 

The documents in which the transactions are expressed are known in the business and banking

world as ‘trust receipts.’—In re Boswell, C.C.A. Cal., 96 F.2d 239, 241.

            Used in domestic transactions

            In trade practice and by the support of the judicial authority, a trust receipt might equally

be used in connection with a domestic transaction as it is used in an importation of merchandise.

—In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y. 30 F.2d 555, 557.

            Original use

            Trust receipts were originally employed as a convenient method of financing importations,

and are still so used. –In re Bell Motor Co., C.C.A.Mo., 45 F.2d 19, 22.

            Of vital importance in importing trade

            By the arrangement known as the “trust receipt” plan a banker advances money to an

intending importer, and thereby lends the aid of capital, of credit, and of business facilities and

agencies abroad, to the enterprise of foreign commerce.  This practice is of great importance to

importers and without it much of our foreign trade would be impossible because the individual

importer lacks the necessary capital and foreign credit.—In re. Duniap Carpet Co., D.C.Pa., 206

F. 726, 730, 731.

            As used in the importing trade

            (1) The term “trust receipt” is applied to an instrument in writing whereby a banker, having

advanced money for the purchase of imported merchandise and having taken title in his own

name and retaining such title, delivers possession of the merchandise to the importer on an

agreement in writing to hold the merchandise in trust for the banker until he is paid.  The only kind

of instrument which we have recognized and called a trust receipt is one where the banker at the

request of the importer buys goods directly from the foreign seller and takes title in his own

name from the foreign seller and then turns the goods which he has thus bought directly in his

own name over to the importer on a trust receipt in order that the latter may carry on his own

commercial adventure.—Simons v. Northeaster Finance Corp. 171 N.E. 643, 644, 271 Mass.

255.

            (2) A merchant who wishes to import goods for which he has not funds to pay obtains

credit from a bank to a fixed amount, against which he draws for the price of the goods to the

order of the vendor or the vendor draws for the price of the goods to his own order.  The draft

with the bill of lading indorsed in blank or to the order of the bank is forwarded by the vendor to

the banker for acceptance.  The banker accepts the draft payable in one, two, three, or four

months, as the case may be, forwards the bill of lading indorsed in blank to his agent in New

York, who delivers the same to the importer against a receipt called a trust receipt, whereby he

agrees to sell the goods for account of the banker, to pay him the proceeds and so put him in

funds to take up the acceptance at maturity.—In re Cattus, N.Y., 183 F. 733, 734, 106 C.C.A.

171. [In New York, huh?]

            (3) It is an instrument whereby the banker advancing the money on an importation takes

title directly to himself, and as owner delivers the goods to the dealer in whose behalf he is acting

secondarily and to whom the title ultimately is to go when the primary right of the banker has

been satisfied, the title remaining in the banker until the price is paid to him.—People’s Nat. Bank

v. Mulholland, 117 N.E. 46, 47, 228 Mass. 152.

            Use extended because of marketing of automobiles

            The use of trust receipts has become greatly extended in the United States since the

automobile has assumed its nationwide and popular proportions in financing and credit

requirements for this major industry.—In re Boswell, D.C.Cal., 20 F.Supp. 748, 751.

            Similarly expressed

            (1) There are various forms of chattel security, as a pledge, conditional sale, or mortgage. 

But the trust receipt does not, on its face or by its name, purport to conform to any of these

types.  It is not a pledge, for a pledge depends upon possession of the parties secured, and,

when possession is lost, so is the security.  While the title in the case of a pledge is in the

pledgor, or in another than the pledge, such is not true in a trust receipt, where the title is

intended to remain in the party secured while the possession is intrusted to one who has a certain

interest as yet indefinite in the property.  The practice of a conditional sale bears some

resemblance to a trust receipt.  Possession cannot be retaken until there is a default; whereas in

a trust receipt, it can be retaken at any time .  The holder of the trust receipt is not interested in

the sale of the property or its commercial or market value.  If he retakes the goods, and sells

them for an amount in excess of the sum, this excess belong to the buyer or importer; whereas, in

a conditional sale, the buyer is interested only in such amount as he has paid on account of his

contract. In any event, the holder of the trust receipt does not sell the goods to the importer or

domestic trader, and whether or not the bank, finance company, or individual has an intention of

selling goods to him, it lends him credit and advances the money for the buyer’s account.  In the

case of a mortgage, whether of chattels or realty, the security is dependent upon the title, as

distinguished from a pledge, which rests upon possession.  Title is given to the person, while

possession may be given to the mortgagor, or the debtor, or his representative.  The title thus

conveyed to the mortgagee is as security for the performance of his obligation, and, in the case of

a trust receipt, title has never been in the importer or domestic buyer, and he consequently

cannot convey such title back to the holder of the trust receipt.  If the mortgagor conveys his title

to the mortgagee as security for the performance of an obligation to a third person, the equity of

redemption belongs to him, and not to the third person, and the property reverts to him upon

performance of the obligation by the third person.  In a trust receipt, under no circumstances does

title revert to the manufacturer or seller .: --In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 557, 558.

            (2) While the security interest afforded by a trust receipt prior to the enactment of the

uniform law was somewhat similar to many other forms of chattel security, it may be distinguished

from such transactions as s mortgage, pledge or conditional sale. In the case of a mortgage, a

lien is given by the mortgagor to the mortgagee in order to secure the latter for the performance

of an obligation by the mortgagor who retains possession of the property.  The trust receipt does

not conform to a pledge, since in the case of a pledge the security depends upon possession of

the goods by the person secured; whereas in the case of a trust receipt, the entruster does not

have possession of the goods.  In the case of a conditional sale, possession may not ordinarily be

retaken until there is a default in the contract; whereas under a trust receipt transaction,

possession may be retaken at any time .  Other distinguishing features of these various types of

security interest under the former law are clearly indicated in the case of In re James, Inc., 2 Cir.,

30 F.2d 555.”—C.I.T. Corporation v. Commercial Bank of Patterson, 149 P.2d 439, 442, 64

Cal.App.2d 722—Chichester v. Commercial Credit Co., 99 P.2d 1083, 1085, 37 Cal.App.2d 439.

            (3) In a trust receipt transaction it was held that no element of a conditional sale or chattel

mortgage was present, and consequently none of the requisites to the validity of such instruments

was required.—In re E. Reboulin Fils & Co., D.C.N.J., 165 F. 245, 248.

            May be a chattel mortgage

             When the substance of the transaction is considered rather than the form, a trust receipt

may be nothing but a chattel mortgage on a stock of merchandise daily exposed for sale in

parcels at retail. –General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Boddecker, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.

1016, 1018.

            Not chattel mortgage

            (1) “Upon examination of the instrument in suit it seems plain enough that there was no

obligation imposed on the sales company either to pay or to secure a purchase price, nor did any

title pass to the sales company to support a chattel mortgage back.”—Globe Securities Co. V.

Gardner Motor Co., 85 S.W.2d 561, 567, 337 Mo. 177.

            (2) “The decisions are not entirely in harmony as to the nature of trust receipts of the

character involved in this proceeding, or their proper interpretation, whether they constitute

conditional sales contracts, or, are; in their nature; chattel mortgagees, or contracts of agency

creating bailments.  The holding in this state is that they are contracts creating bailments for

sale and not in their nature chattel mortgages.”—Commercial Credit Co. v. Interstate Securities

Co., Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 1000, 1004.

            Close resemblance to conditional sale

            The trust receipt transaction in its historic aspects and fundamental theory more nearly

falls under the category of a conditional sale than a chattel mortgage.—Walter v. Commercial

Credit Co., 200 N.W. 300, 302, 68 S.D. 151.

            Superior protection to unrecorded chattel mortgage

            It has been recognized that trust receipts should have superior protection as compared

with an unrecorded chattel mortgage, when they are given to a lender of money by some one

other than the debtor, and where either the delivery or possession against trust receipts is made

to the debtor.—In re James. Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 558.

            Similarly expressed

            Under the ordinary form of trust receipt, it is well settled that the title to the property is in

the holder of the receipt, and not in the receiptor, and the rights incident to such title and

ownership will be enforced as against the one giving the receipt, his receiver, trustee in

bankruptcy, and creditors generally.  The courts in so holding are, in most instances, merely

giving effect to the express provisions of the trust receipt, one of which commonly is that the

goods are held as the property of the party to whom the receipt is given.—In re Otto-Johnson

Mercantile Co. D.C.N.M., 52 F.2d 678, 680.

            Recording not required

            The holder of a trust receipt, if he derives his security title from a person other than the

one responsible for the satisfaction of the obligation which the property secures, is not obliged to

file his security as is required in the case of a chattel mortgage.  In such cases only can he deliver

the property to the obligor to act as his fiduciary.—In re James Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555,

557.

            Purpose of act.

            “The Uniform Trust Receipts Act is a perplexing maze of technical phrases wholly

incomprehensible without an extensive study of the background and development of the security

device known as the trust receipt.  To avoid trespassing upon the traditional and well defined

fields of such common security devices as the pledge, conditional sale and chattel mortgage,

most of the act is devoted to definition, limitation and restriction of the arena in which the new

device is to play its part in the world of commerce.  The object of the Act is to standardize and

protect the trust receipt method of financing the acquisition and resale of goods in their journey

form producer to retailer.”—In re Chappell, C.C.Or., 77 F.Supp. 573, 575

 

 

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

 

 

 

COVER LETTER SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

 

Claimant/Grantor continues to declare Truth in form of affidavit, as best as Claimant knows it and

believes it to be; this Affiant, Secured Party, Private Attorney General, and Servant of the Most

High Creator, in, and for, His Higher Kingdom, John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, said Servant

being duly and properly Baptized unto His Righteousness and claiming Birthright of the Lineage

of Jacob, of the Tribe of Judah of the Lower Branch, which included the Spartans, Trojans,

Milesians, Frankish, Scandinavian, and Irish/Scots, was grafted into the Higher Branch of Judah

with the marriage of King Eochaidh to Princess Tamar Talphi; Claimant also claims an

unmeasured bloodline of the Tribe of Dan and of the Tribe of Gad, and, of unmeasured aboriginal

American National bloodline of the Tribal Nation Cherokee and Chief Moytoy; and,

Now, therefore, by the Authority of the Original Organic Constitution of The United States of

America and the Oath of Office of all duly sworn officers and employees of the UNITED STATES

and the STATE OF MISSOURI and every subdivision of said corporate government, I do beckon,

request, and demand restitution of Claimant’s Property (which may have been stolen,

confiscated, pirated, or taken for unauthorized use by another) and Rights and compensation of

damages for the injuries brought upon me, and enumerated in this, and annexed/associated

documents.

 

This/these Claim(s) is/are authorized to be timely and expeditiously processed under the 72-hour

rule as referenced in “The Expeditious Transaction Act,” 12 CFR Part 226.1 and Truth In Lending

Act 31 CFR Sec. 226.1

 

If Accord and Satisfaction are not attained, Claimant reserves the right to initiate a Libel of

Information to issue an arrest warrant for the bonds of the Governor of the International Monetary

Fund or any of his agents (referenced at 28 USC, PART VI, CHAPTER 163) in order to protect

the interest of a Free Inhabitant of The United States of America. Administrative action against

Claimant/Grantor is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 USC 7421, by Claimant/Grantor

protecting the combination of property rights and contract rights that has been placed in custody

by the agents of the Treasury, the Department of Transportation, the Bureau of the Census,

various and sundry Agencies, and the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue laws

of the corporate United States.

 

FRCP – Rule 81 makes reference to rights and safe guards, paid for in the highest premium - the

blood of Claimant’s ancestors that died in the War of Independence (and the risk of

Claimant/Grantor’s blood, 1966 - 1968 (see DD 214)), for the People of The United States of

America and their posterity, therewith, establishing a “Constitutional” precedence and supremacy,

whereby failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985,

1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242) is a Criminal Offense. 

 

The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of Chicago published a circular titled “PUBLIC DEBT:

PRIVATE ASSET” in January 1999. On page four of said circular it plainly states, “…to a

consumer a savings account at a bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt .” Several

paragraphs later it says, “Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against

the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of the

government’s debt is someone's asset .” [Emphasis added]

 

The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 - "A 'citizen of the United States' is a

civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private

constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of

the USA and US Inc. in Section 4." NOTE: The Living Man chooses NOT to participate in the any

act/action of a DEAD (corporate) entity.

 

This act/action of the de facto government of the UNITED STATES as mentioned in the last

paragraph exemplifies and makes plain the fact that said UNITED STATES corporation, a

stranger, has usurped “ABATEMENT OF FREEHOLD” under unlawful intervention by seizing and

taking possession of property belonging to a Living Man

 

This counter against Abatement of Freehold is deemed a “BILL RENDERED,” a bill rendered by

a creditor to his debtor, and a “BILL OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT” to assure that any

defects are cured, so as to entitle Claimant to relief on the whole merit of Claim.

 

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

 

 

Affidavit and Declaration

 

 

 

I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, under the Jurisdiction of Natural Law, the Living Flesh and

Blood Man, the Son of Man, and hereditary sibling of The Anointed One, made explicit in

Gutenberg Bible for Birth Trust Claims as registered in Repository: Library of Congress “Bible

Collection,” Illus. in Incun. 1454.B5, do on this date: June 10th, 2010 CE, at this location

37.11363-92.58489 (Grid Co-ordinates) from the beginning, non-movable, instituted and

established upon attainment of majority of age, competent to take control of my own financial

affairs as Executor of Estate and able to honor all claims, do declare under penalty of perjury to

be a Statesman of the Missouri Republic and a Statesman of the Aniyvwiya Nation, Category

Four (4) [non-treaty] Aboriginal North American Natives.

 

 

By Grantor,                                                                                     

                    Executor for the Estate

 

Under duress per minas, ephemeral and desultory codes, statutes, and

regulations with protest affirmed, without United States.

 

JURAT

Missouri state                                                 )

                                                )   

Wright county ____________)

 

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by

the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory

evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

 

______________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: ___________           (seal)

 

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

 

 

 

In the Account of John-

Quincy: Jones

Who may be NOTICED at:

C/O 123 West Columbus

Street

Somewhere, Missouri Republic

Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT

DMM122.32

 

 

 

YOUR PICTURE HERE

 

Power of Attorney

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

And, grant of Exclusive power of attorney to conduct all business, and legal affairs of principal

person.

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT

 

1)         In the Matter of the DEBTOR/GRANTOR known as JOHN JONES©, JONES-JOHN©,

J.Q.. JONES©, JOHN QUINCY JONES©, John Q. Jones©, or any derivative(s) thereof, {who

may be Noticed at above location for NOTICE, does hereby appoint John-Quincy: Jones, as my

attorney in fact, to take exclusive charge of, manage, and conduct all of my taxing, business and

legal affairs, all Copyrights, and for such purpose to act for me in my name and place, without

limitation on the powers necessary to execute this exclusive attorney in fact as authorized:

 

 (A)      To take possession of, hold, and manage my Real Property or Estate and all other

Property;

 

 (B)      DEBTOR/GRANTOR John Q. Jones, being a beneficiary of various trusts by similar

sounding names, or derivatives thereof, agrees to function primarily as a 'transmitting utility',

conducting commercial activity including all receivables being money, currency, notes, and/or

Property paid or delivered to me from any source for the Secured Party/Creditor and agrees to

enter in the 'Chamber Commercial Registry' as said 'transmitting utility' and has assigned the

Creditor John-Quincy: Jones, with said Christian Appellation, complete Power of Attorney in

fact, for the Secured Party, Creditor, and Agent of Authority;

 

(C)       To deposit funds in, make withdrawals from, or sign checks or drafts against any account

standing in my name individually or jointly in any bank or other depository, to cash coupons,

bonds, or certificates of deposits to endorse checks, notes or other documents in my name; to

have access to, and place items in or remove them from, any safety deposit box standing in my

name individually, and otherwise to conduct bank transactions or business for me in my name;

 

(D)       To pay my just obligations and expenses, including reasonable expenses incurred by my

attorney in fact John-Quincy: Jones, that may be considered prudent in exercising this exclusive

power of attorney in fact;

 

(E)       To retain any/all equity involving investments, invest, and to invest in stock, bonds or other

securities, or in Real Property or Estate or other Property;

 

(F)        To give general and special proxies or exercise rights of conversion or rights with respect

to shares or securities, to assign shares or securities with, or transfer them to protective

committees or similar bodies, to join in any reorganization and transfer assessments and/or

subscriptions called for in connection with shares or securities;

 

(G)       To grant, sell, transfer, exchange, lease, give options, and make contracts concerning

Real Property or Estate or other Property for such considerations and on such terms as my

Attorney in Fact John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent;

 

(H)       To improve or develop Real Property or Estate, to construct, alter, or repair building

structures and appurtenances or Real Property or Estate; to settle boundary lines, easements,

mineral and other rights with respect to Real Property or Estate; to plant, cultivate, harvest, and

sell or otherwise dispose of crops and timber, and do all things necessary or appropriate to good

husbandry;

 

(I)         To provide for the use, maintenance, repair, security, or storage for any/all my tangible

Property or Estate;

 

(J)        To purchase and maintain such policies of insurance against liability, fire, casualty, or

other risks as my attorney in fact John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent;

 

(K)           To amend, add, delete, or change in order that the truth be ascertained and justly

determined in any form of contract that John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent.

 

            The Creditor, John-Quincy: Jones, named on the Filing UCC1 # 123456789000 and

Commercial Security Agreement filed with the Secretary of State of Missouri is authorized by

law to act for and in control of the DEBTOR/GRANTOR being JOHN Q. JONES, JOHN QUINCY

JONES, J.Q. JONES or any derivative(s) thereof.  In addition, through the exclusive power of

attorney in fact to contract for all business and legal affairs of the principal person,

DEBTOR/GRANTOR known as JOHN Q. JONES, JOHN QUINCY JONES, J.Q. JONES or any

derivative(s) thereof.

 

            The term "exclusive" shall be construed to mean that while these powers of attorney in

fact are in force, only my attorney in-fact may obligate me in these matters, and I forfeit the

capacity to obligate myself with regard to same.  This grant of Exclusive Power is Irrevocable

during the lifetime of the Creditor John-Quincy: Jones.

 

Executed and sealed by the voluntary act of my own hand, this _____ day of _______________,

2010.

John-Quincy: Jones, one living servant of Yahshua the Christ, prepared this instrument.

 

I, the above named exclusive attorney-in-fact, do hereby accept the fiduciary interest and duty of

the herein named Debtor/Grantor and will execute the herein granted powers-of-attorney with due

diligence.

 

Acceptance:  This __ day of ___________, 2010   

L.S.                                                                                                    

 

/S/ JOHN Q. JONES , GRANTOR                                            

DEBTOR Signature /UCC 3-419                                by

_________________________________________

                                                                              John-Quincy: Jones, Creditor / Attorney in

fact.

 

 

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

In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones

Who may be NOTICED at:

C/O 123 West Columbus Street

Somewhere, Missouri Republic 14084 North State Highway 125

Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

 

 

NOTICE - REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

And, Previous Codicil pursuant to 26§673 and 26§1341

I, John-Quincy: Jones©, born a Missouri state Citizen, living in Missouri and not residing "in the

state" nor "in this state" within the meaning of any other "federal area" described under Title 4

U.S.C. §110 (d) and (e), making My Abode outside the STATE OF MISSOURI and the U.S

described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) in and not "of" Missouri entitled to Judicial Power Citizenship

status due a de jure Missouri state Citizen thereof invoking the Ninth and Tenth Articles in

Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America reserved exclusively to

the People, hereby revoke, rescind and make void, ab initio, all 13th amendment presumed

powers of attorney, in fact, or, otherwise, implied in law, or otherwise, signed either by me or by

anyone else in and/or on my behalf, as it pertains to an alleged Social Security Number assigned

and/or attached to Missouri Driver’s License Number #A1234567, birth certificates marriage

license and all other licenses and/or certificates issued by any/all state and/or Federal

governmental/ quasi governmental entities, due to use of the various elements of fraud by said

agencies to deprive John-Quincy: Jones© of My primary Missouri state Citizenship and

Privileges and Immunities secured by Article 1V, Section 4 of the Constitution for the united

States of America.

I, John-Quincy: Jones© hereby waive, cancel, repudiate and refuse to knowingly accept any

benefit and/or gratuity attached to the above-mentioned items and/or transactions that are not

secured by Article 1, §10 (U.S. Const.).

YOU HAVE BEEN NOTICED.

Done this __ day of __________, 2010

by __________________________authorized representative

John-Quincy: Jones©, Secured Party

 

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

 

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS

 

 

TO: RISK MANAGEMENT AT EVERY LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATION

 

Greetings:

 

BE INFORMED; to protect my Interests, Properties, and Rights, I, John-Quincy: of the Jones

Family, as Trustee and in the nature of Private Attorney General, do, herein, make known my

intention to investigate, pursue, and expose “Dishonest Acts” that may have been exercised

against me and concealed from me to the detriment of my interests, rights, and properties.

 

Attached and annexed to this document are various Affidavits in support to fully establish my

Claims.

 

This is Actual and Constructive Notice that, in accordance with Treasury Directive 25-06 and 16-

14 that all Confidential Commercial Information in this set of Claims are presented to several

affiliated parties and the Treasury Data Integrity Board for their inspection as prescribed.

Therefore, any and all agents may be in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Hallenbeck v. Leimert 295 U S 116 (1935) and under the Erie and Clearfield Doctrines where

individuals responsible can be held personally liable.

 

 

 

Trustee ____________________________, authorized representative

 

 

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

RELEASE of POWER OF APPOINTMENT and DEED OF AGENCY OVER PROPERTY HELD

IN TRUST

 

COMES NOW: John-Quincy: of the Jones Family hereinafter Affiant, who is of lawful age and

sound mind, who is a competent witness and is telling the truth, voluntarily relating the following

first hand knowledge of the facts and stating that these facts are true and represent the best of

my knowledge.

 

Affiant hereby exercises Powers of “Powerholder” Trustee to Discharge Co-Trustee's

Obligation. [Gift Resulting from Exercise of Special Power of Appointment by Life Beneficiary of

Trust to Appoint Corpus to Another.] Applicable Retained Interest and Qualified Payment Right

 

This is a release of Power Of Appointment and Deed Of Agency over property held in any,

and all, manner of trust under any nomenclature, in whole, made under false directives,

mis-information, intentional mis-representation, et cetera, and as such, all matters legal,

lawful, and expedient, under the signature of the Man, John-Quincy: Jones, Affiants

Christian Appellation, or Affiants Trustworthy signet of: John Q. Jones, J.Q. Jones, or

several other variations of similitude.

 

This release of Appointment functions as a NOTICE under 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249

(Section 1), July Twenty seventh eighteen sixty eight and serves as notice unto all government

employees that the below signed Citizen of Missouri Republic, an American Citizen, may, and

has, legally and lawfully expatriate(d) out of the jurisdiction of the United States into the

jurisdiction of a Sovereign State and claim State Citizenship.

           

At the young age in Affiant's childhood years, Affiant was informed by employees of the federal

government that the law required Affiant to obtain, and that Affiant should "have", a Social

Security Card before Affiant could work or otherwise be compensated for labor. Affiant applied for

a Social Security card and was issued the number 123-45-6789.

 

The contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy that resulted in the issuance of the above

Social Security Number is invalid because Affiant did not have legal capacity in Affiant's minor

years of age for signing a binding contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy.

 

Because the supreme Court has determined that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts and

even judgments, the Social Security Card that was issued bearing a name similar to Affiant's

Christian Appellation is null and void, ab initio, as if it had never been issued, because of fraud by

the Social Security Administration.

 

John-Quincy: Jones is hereby and herein completely released out of the Social Security 

contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy, said release is absolute and upon fulfillment of

consideration by the Social Security Trust Fund, the Social Security Administration is

unconditionally released out of all obligations on behalf of John-Quincy: Jones without

consideration for the Social Security Administration.

 

The above described Social Security Card bearing the number 123-45-6789 is maintained under

custodial care by authorized caregiver and shall be kept safe and reasonably free from harm until

just and adequate compensation from Affiant's various Trust Funds is rendered to Affiant. At the

point of just and adequate consideration, said card shall be surrendered to the Social Security

Administration, the Agency that issued said card, or, if requested by compensating agent, Affiant

shall surrender said card to him/her. 

 

According to Black's 1st, "Deed of Agency" is a revocable and voluntary trust for the payment of

debts.  All “Deeds of Agency” are hereby revoked, in toto, by Affiant.

 

Before the Almighty Creator and under His statutes, I declare that the foregoing is the truth in

accord with the best of my knowledge and belief. You are hereby NOTICED.

 

 

__________________________________

John-Quincy: Jones, Sui Juris

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

John-Quincy: Jones, the undersigned, who is personally known by me or upon proper

identification, appeared before me this day and signed the within instrument in my presence and

for the purposes therein stated.

Signed this ____day of ____________, 2010, at City of Somewhere, County of Wright, Missouri

State

 

SEAL

 

 

 

_________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

 

My commission expires on:_______________________________________

 

 

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

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION

 

This issue is confusing in it most simple form, thus, this summary, to explain why this procedure

is important, and why it must function as directed.

 

1. Due to convoluted and distorted “education,” many believe what we were taught in the

public fool system, which is contrary to our best interests.

2. All commerce (outside of bartering) is controlled by PRIVATE business structure and is

regulated through private IRS “codes.”

3. The use of Federal Reserve Notes places users within jurisdiction of private corporate

laws.

4. Under “assumption/presumption” we operate and function under the doctrine of "Partus

Sequitur Ventrem," meaning that the offspring is the property of the owner of the mother. The

usual “witness” to the application for a “Birth Certificate” is normally the “mother.”

5. The doctrine of “Parens Patriae,” Latin, means "parent of the country," the role of the

state as sovereign. See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., is forced upon us.

6. The doctrine “In Loco Parentis,” means “in the place of the parent; or, instead of a

parent; charged factitiously with a parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities.” See Black's Law

Dictionary, 5th ed., is, also, forced upon us.

7. The past 3 points displays presumptions/assumptions that when the mother (any mother,

or other informant ) signs the “application” for a birth certificate of the child, the presumption is

that she is the black slave that is still owned by the government, or that the child is a

fatherless [bastard] child (of a truth, most document administrators reporting in, and for,

hospitals, do NOT care that there is a Father's Name on the birth certificate, but the Mother's

MAIDEN Name is paramount) and automatically a ward of the court/government, therefore,

without this admonition, the doctrine of Partus Sequitur Ventrem (above) applies and the

owner (the STATE) can do with the children as the owner wishes.

8. As such, the herd of Sheeple is managed until each individual reaches the age of

majority. Food and necessities are provided by welfare; education is provided by “ primary

education program.” [Concerning such owned “children of the state”] "The law secures their

parental right only so long as they shall promptly recognize and discharge their corresponding

obligations. As the child owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, so it is

entitled to the protection of that government, which as parens patriae, must consult its welfare,

comfort, and interests in regulating its custody during its minority.” See PURINTON v.

JAMROCK, 195 Mass. 187, 80 N.E. 102, 18 L.R.A., N.S., 925. To continue the thought (as

quoted in the 2000 Census brochure), the object of the Census, by law, is to count the

"defective, dependent, and delinquent classes". Virtually everyone counted in the 2000

Census is now presumed to be "defective, dependent, and delinquent", and thus, wards of the

Court/State. Does that sound like a corporate collection of "incompetent persons"?

9. Upon attainment of “age of majority” we are to declare that we are competent to take

control of our own financial affairs of estate and able to honor all claims, and declare under

penalty of perjury to be a Statesman of the Republic of Missouri.

10. According to another researcher 6.5m USD was transferred into a “slush fund” with each

application for a Social Security Card. Those funds can be transferred into an account that we

can utilize upon the “collapsing” of the SS trust.

11. In a different “branch” or direction of thought, everything in the fiction is ass-backwards,

upside down, or inside out. Our “birth bond” account is accessible upon completion of #9

above and the issuance of a NEGATIVE ( - ) charging instrument (Promissory Note or

I.B.O.E.) issued to the Treasurer (not the Sec. of the Treasury) in the amount charged to our

account.

 

My will, wishes, and desire is to freely travel without harassment, intimidation, coercion, or fear of

corporate Pirates operating under letters of Marquee and Reprisal and Liberate my own

commercial character to barter and exchange values that my necessities for body, spirit, and

emotional enjoyment may be attained by utilizing the assets that have been my own since the

age of majority.

 

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

 

 

NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

 

I, John-Quincy: Jones, as pre-existing “Beneficiary” do herewith exercise my Right of Claim

under International Law, Law of Nations, and International Trust Law to appoint a Successor

Trustee by authority on one, or more, of the following provisions:

A. If a person appointed as trustee fails to qualify, is unwilling to or unable to serve or resigns

as trustee or if a trustee was not designated in the deed of trust, the beneficiary may appoint

a successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee. Change

and substitution may result from any of several reasons for disqualifications and/or

replacements; acknowledged reasons follow:

1. If previous Trustee is not a known person with office, or position, to be properly

Noticed;

2. If previous Trustee is not qualified to discharge debts of Beneficiary;

3. If previous Trustee has made his person, or office, unaccountable to the law of

Trusts, International Law, and Common Law to provide harmony and continuity in

commerce; or,

4.  If previous Trustee has initiated any action, at any time, of any issue that was not

fully disclosed to Beneficiary from the beginning;

B. The beneficiary may at any time remove a trustee for any reason or cause and appoint a

successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee.

C. A notice of substitution of trustee shall be made public by proper and timely placement of

Actions of Record within locally, or regionally, circulated news media, or, by endorsement

under Oath before a Public Notary, or by record in the office of the county recorder of each

county in which the trust property or some part of the trust property is situated at the time of

the substitution.

D. In all Issues that may arise, Appointment of Nominee precedes Substitution of Successor

Trustee.

 

Beneficiary hereby appoints: _____________________________ agent

 

John Q. Jones, c/o 123 West Columbus Street, Somewhere, Missouri, near [12345] as

Nominee, is herein appointed as qualified Successor Trustee in trustee’s capacity as a

Transmitting Utility, effective date of signing.

 

Missouri state                                                 )

                                                )

Wright county ____________)

 

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by

the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory

evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

 

______________________________ My commission expires: ___________           (seal)

Notary Public

 

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

 

APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE

 

I certify that I am voluntarily appointing a nominee.

 

I authorize all applicable departments and agencies to discuss any/all details pertinent to me with

my nominee.

 

I authorize all departments and agencies to send letters pertinent to me to my nominee.

 

I understand that I can cancel this appointment at any time by noticing nominee and applicable

departments and agencies.

 

John-Quincy: of the Jones Family

 

 

DECLARATION – NOMINEE

 

I certify that any information I obtain from any applicable department or agency will be kept

confidential and will not be disclosed to any unauthorized person without the permission of the

person appointing me.

 

I understand that I can cancel this appointment at any time, by writing to the applicable

departments and agencies.

 

I understand that I must inform the applicable departments and agencies of any changes to my

address and contact details and changes in the circumstances of the person who has appointed

me.

 

Nominee and Authorized Representative ____________________________________

 

 

 

Missouri state                                                 )

                                                )   

Wright county ____________)

 

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by

the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory

evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

 

______________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: ___________           (seal)

 

 

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

 

Private and Confidential

 

 

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

Department of Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20220

 

TO: Mr./Mrs. Whoever, Comptroller of the Missouri Treasury

Address

 

TO: Senior Senator of ______ State and all addressees listed on ____________ page.

 

 

WILL AND TESTAMENT:

 

THIS IS FULL AND COMPLETE STATEMENT of The Man, last mentioned in this stipulation,

done so on this date: July 05, 2010, at this location (GOOGLE EARTH) (Grid Co-ordinates)

made certain, from The Beginning, non-movable and made known, this, my WILL AND

TESTAMENT, to wit:

 

 

DECLARATION OF VENUE AND JURISDICTION

 

The Man, Praedial, (see EXHIBIT O), hereinafter referred to as “Grantor,” does ascertain,

through examination and discovery, that “colorable” venue and jurisdiction of the fiction does NOT

apply to Grantor, nor does said “colorable” venue and jurisdiction of a/any DELAWARE TRUST

bankruptcy venue apply to the estate and property of Grantor. The choice of Venue and

Jurisdiction by Grantor is Jurisdiction of Creator Yahweh , made explicit in Gutenberg Bible for

Birth Trust Claims as registered in Repository: Library of Congress “Bible Collection,” Illus. in

Incun. 1454.B5, and Jurisdiction of Natural Law as expressed by the Trust of 1776 known as

“The Declaration of Independence;” and, Grantor does, without reservation, Pledge Allegiance to,

and give cognizance to, the “Freely Associated Compact States,” each and severally, of America.

 

 

NON-ASSUMPSIT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

 

Black’s Law 5th Non-assumpsit. The general issue in the action of assumpsit; being a plea by

which the defendant avers, "he did not undertake or promise as alleged."

 

Agency of State is commercial Charter of Maritime jurisdiction; Grantor herein refutes agency

terms of Uniform Commercial Code 3-104 "promise" and rejects "unconditional" actions and

impositions as "unconscionable" at UCC 2-302 as it/they apply to implied, assumed, and/or

presumed acts, actions, and/or contracts allegedly done by Grantor.

 

 

DECLARATION OF WAR (COMMERCIAL CONFLICT)

Also, referred to as “Mixed Domestic War”

 

For purposes of this Declaration of Commercial Conflict (WAR) Grantor of the Trust(s) is

“Claimant.” Claimant’s state citizenship is only as a “Citizen of Common Right” and is brought

forth along with personam Rights, which do not mingle with statute procedure. Claimant does not

understand the charges wherein citizens were/are deemed “Enemies of the State” wherein “the

State” has Declared War on “We Thee People” by Statutory Act, making a “Public War” and

not a “Civil War” and "due to mistakes in fact and Law," Claimant makes all Claims "without

prejudice." NOTE: An Act of War causes an incidental/non-participant to be, also, at War.

Claimant is “against the wall” and remits this Extra-Ordinary Action to obtain remedy and

restitution.

 

Under “emergency powers” there must be an active and visible occupation of the land by armed

troops of the entity that declares emergency powers. This is called "open and notorious, armed

and hostile, occupation of the land." Under the guise of “emergency,” the police, firemen,

highway patrol, state marshals, and county sheriffs have been placed under control of the

National Guard, which was federalized in 1972.

 

See EXHIBIT – ZA for further details concerning “DECLARATION OF WAR.”

 

Solemn Recognition of Mixed Domestic War

 

A solemn recognition of "Mixed War" is an instrument which contains a criminal complaint that

includes an "Affidavit of Information", ......On or about......"date"........, ......"did

unlawfully"....., ........"committed as follows"....... and sworn declaration that the State has denied

the party all civilized remedies for his/her problem. The universal format for writing a Solemn

Recognition of Mixed War, is the well-known example of such an instrument known as the

Declaration of Independence.

 

Therefore, Claimant does give recognition of “Mixed War” as a direct Criminal Action against

Claimant within this AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION, to wit:

 

On or about Claimant’s attainment of age of majority (stated elsewhere in this set of documents)

various minions of the Corporate UNITED STATES did unlawfully deny and deprive Claimant of

Claimant’s true inheritance of substantive property and rights to property, as follows: 1. by

effectively removing the proper court(s) from ready access to Claimant, 2. by effectively placing

“secret liens” on Claimant’s account(s), 3. by effectively placing fictitious and factitious privateers

(Inland Pirates), masquerading as “figures of authority” operating under letters of Marque and

Reprisal to plunder and steal Prize and Booty from Claimant and Claimant’s account(s) through

implementation of “cash register law,” and 4. by effectively concealing material facts (See “RULE

BY OLOGARCHY, below) from Claimant in order to maintain a “starvation status” upon Claimant

and forcing Claimant into “Involuntary Servitude.”

 

Claimant does declare that the “State” in every form and echelon has denied Claimant all civilized

remedies for Claimant’s distress and said “State” is ordered to SURCEASE: so declared this 5th

day of July, 2010: as witnessed (See Signature Page). Also, See EXHIBIT – ZB for further

information concerning “Mixed Domestic War.”

 

 

RULE BY OLIGARCHY

 

An "oligarchy" is a government run by the few, the "few" being, without doubt, attorneys, is the

extreme of democracy, the end product of which is mass confusion in the minds of thoughtful and

meaningful people with a simple explanation as follows:

 

To show that Congress INTENTIONALLY has made the laws unreadable by the average

person, an objective method of measuring the readability of English text must be discussed.

English scholars use a scale known as the "Flesch Index" that measures the level of

understanding necessary for an individual to comprehend the written English language.

Newspapers are written at an average comprehension level of 7. The average high school

graduate reads and understands at a level of 10. The average law school graduate reads

and comprehends at a level of 15. The Internal Revenue Code ranks on this index at an

average level of 31 , with some specific provisions as high as 55 . And the words that are

used in the law have specific legal definitions that are different from the common English

definitions. Since the laws that we are supposed to obey are written at a level that an

individual of reasonable intelligence cannot understand, then perhaps we should be highly

suspect of the law writer's motives. By making the law so difficult to comprehend,

Congress has effectively removed our access to Justice and Equality under the Law.

 

 

 

CLAIM OF AUTONOMY

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

 

AUTONOMY. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence. Self-government or

the right of self-government; self-determination.

 

Grantor (Grantor/Claimant), by Grantor’s own Will and Oath does, herein, declare full and

complete Autonomy against any/all entity/entities that do, or attempt to, assert/usurp will or

authority integrated into, in conjunction with, or in any measure of convergence over, or upon,

Grantor, in Grantor’s capacity of Living Man/Spirit, or any of Grantor’s own persons/personages in

present and future (omni) time.

 

 

NON-WITHHOLDING FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST

 

Grantor of FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST (see EXHIBIT M and N) and LIEN CREDITOR (see

EXHIBIT P) and PARSON (persona ecclesiae, quatenus parson —See EXHIBIT G and R) who

was, under assumption and presumption, the Beneficiary to the Trust(s) (see EXHIBIT Q1 and

Q2), do transfer all interest (alienable/transferable) in foreign situs trust(s), and cestui que trust(s),

or any other type of trust(s) established on, or after, the registry of the “Certificate of Live Birth”

and the application for “Social Security Benefits” and various other “applications” for “privileges”

to Grantor, the rightful holder in due course under Jurisdiction established in declaration of venue

and jurisdiction above, and grants no Gifts, Bequests, and Devises to any other; and, herein

proclaims:

1. The “NAME” of the Trust is JOHN QUINCY JONES (See EXHIBIT ZC); and,

2. The “BENEFICIARY” to the Trust is the Flesh and Blood Living Man, John-Quincy:

together with the Spirit of Life that dwells within the vessel of the Man; and,

3. The “TRUSTEE” to the Trust, whose True Value is that of Steward , but, sits as Trustee ,

is the Commercial Character, owned In Toto by the Living Man whose Vessel(s) may be

named: John Q. Jones, JOHN QUINCY JONES, JOHN Q. JONES, J.Q. JONES, with said

names claimed and declared as exclusive property of the Living Man (see EXHIBIT R).

 

Grantor lets NO license to any agent/agency to assert any type of jurisdiction over Grantor , even

when Grantor makes reference to court cases, federal or state statutes and codes, or executive

orders, which are for reader’s reference only, and must not be construed as submission by

Grantor to any jurisdiction other than that previously established, using such quotes as a

"compass rather than a crutch" as intent does not yield jurisdiction by referring and using words of

the wisdom expressed by the authority of antiquity to admonish, edify, and fortify Grantor's

Character of Person and Grantor's Will and Intent of Living Man. Also, use of a notary is for

attestation, verification and identification purposes only and does not constitute a change in

status, relationship, association nor does it constitute consent to be governed.

 

 

CHARGING ORDER FOR EQUIBLE CONVERSION

[This “Charging Order” must first be deemed a “Requisition”]

 

Grantor does herein, initiate this Extra-Judicial Action and commence this Notice, Action, and

Undertaking in the Nature of an Undertaker, Mortician, and Funeral Director; (to protect any

interest Grantor may have in Grantor’s Commercial Character, Rights, and Property, see

EXHIBIT R) and Grantor does take charge of (see EXHIBIT S) the “Corpus” of “Debt/Death” that

has been charged to the Vessel – JOHN QUINCY JONES and all identifying numbers, as

“Registries” or “Enrollments,” associated with said vessel name, including, but not limited to all:

Social Security Administration numbers, Internal Revenue Service numbers, Driver Licensing

numbers, Military numbers, and Insurance numbers operational under “public” and de facto

Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

 

 

INTESTATE REBUTTAL

 

Grantor explicitly refutes any status of being, or having been, “INTESTATE.” Grantor is a Real Man (organic in nature) and a Living Spirit (inorganic in nature); neither is Grantor “TESTATE” (having died, leaving a will) for Grantor is NOT DEAD. Plainly stated, “I AM;” Grantor is “IN ESSE,” in being, actually existing, not a fiction. Grantor is “IN FULL LIFE,” continuing in both physical and civil existence; that is neither actually dead nor civiliter mortuus.

 

 

INJURY OF TRESPASS ADMITTED

And, “NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL”

 

Grantor plainly states that Grantor’s Rights of Property are trespassed upon by “IN FRAUDEM CREDITORUM,” meaning in fraud of creditors, with intent to defraud creditors. Grantor demands restitution and revival of all assets that are/was charged to Grantor’s account(s) and orders such assets to be immediately restored “IN FULL.”

 

[Let us not forget who the “debtor ” is and where the “debtor” is located – U.C.C. 9-307(h).]

 

The “Department of Treasury,” as “Bank,” is the Debtor [See “PUBLIC DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET

below]; Grantor is Secured Party; Grantor’s Agent is Creditor. Creditor takes security interests in,

and, expresses prior and superior claim to, Deposit Accounts of Original Collateral on behalf of

Secured Party and, herein, issues “NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL” in effort to cure the

defect realized by “default” actuated “IN FRAUDEM CREDITORUM.” Creditor, on behalf of

Secured Party, accepts and executes duties as “Customer” of said “bank” (Department of

Treasury) and “Consumer” of aggregated funds. [Offers and Stipulations may be verified in

U.C.C. Article 9]

 

In a Publication of January 1999, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago titled, “PUBLIC

DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET” on page 4 you will find, “…to a consumer a savings account at a

bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt.”

 

Four paragraphs later: “Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of government’s debt is someone’s asset.”

 

 

NOTICE OF ABATEMENT

 

This Action is commenced with the intent to counter the “Abatement of Freehold” where a stranger, having no right, hath taken possession of property belonging to the Living Man, herein so identified, to wit:

 

By Grantor’s hand and under Grantor’s Will: Grantor, does herein ordain this Directive as a

Requisition and an Order concerning all account (s), to include, but not limited to, any/all Contra-

Asset, Inverse-Accounts, and Adverse-Accounts originated upon, or after, the entry, recording,

and registry of the/all vessel(s) derivative of/from the entry, recording, and registry of the

Application for CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH of the living man-child of the male gender, file

number 123-45, State File number 123-45-678900, and number 123456 on back of “Birth

Certificate” copy, listing “Registrant” as: JOHN QUINCY JONES, Registrant number B1234-

567890, recorded at Port of Entry, Douglas county and forwarded to Vital Statistics at Capital

City, State Republic and, also, includes, but is not limited to, all sub-accounts, SSN 123-45-6789,

Driver License A1234567, past Credit Card numbers (unknown), past Mortgage Deed Numbers

(unknown), past hunting and fishing licenses (unknown), etc., that were established in direct

relationship to said account(s) originating at, in, or near THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, UNITED STATES TREASURY

DEPARTMENT, the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, Special Drawing Rights, etc., and,

 

 

IS DIRECTED TO:

 

United States President-Barrack Hussein Obama, Secretary of State-Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Treasurer of the United States-Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Secretary of the Treasury-Timothy F.

Geithner, and to all fictitious, factitious, and de facto agents/agencies exercising a direct, or

indirect, contact, contract, or any fiduciary, or custodial, relationship of, over, or with access into

all said accounts to Abate the Nuisance and terminate the Trustee-ship (as made specific by

usurped “Abatement of Freehold” in the above enumerated accounts) immediately and fully

account for 1) the foreign situs trust, formed after the Application for a Birth Certificate

(“Acknowledgement of Paternity”), and 2) the/a cestui que trust, which may be resultant of the/a

Social Security account and the/any exemption account, and revert all funds, account balances,

and ledger entries to said Estate (as Holder in Due Course of all Remainderman assets) and

charge that portion of an account commonly known as the “National Debt,” related “Trust

Indentures,” and all other charges of “expense” to inure to the benefit of the Estate (estate means

equitable state) listed under the “CONCLUSION” section of this document  with direct access and

supervision of John-Quincy: for Grantor’s sole use, discretion, and pleasure. (See EXHIBIT CC

– Capitalized NAMES, explained)

 

 

NOTICE OF INTEREST

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE INTEREST

 

THIS NOTICE INFORMS ALL PARTIES who may seek to obtain an interest of any kind in the

Property, or Rights to Property, under the Title of JOHN QUINCY JONES, are transferred into

the Trust named JOHN QUINCY JONES by Grantor, letting all Interest in the properties to the

control and execution of Grantor’s Commercial Character, the “person” named John Q. Jones,

as Trust Interest Executor and Executive Trustee/Steward of the Trust.

 

 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

(Which is now Confidential Commercial Information)

 

BE INFORMED: this STATEMENT OF INTEREST makes known to the entire world that Grantor

is the Sole Holder In Due Course of Interest in the Trust and Commercial Legal Entity named

JOHN QUINCY JONES and that this STATEMENT OF INTEREST is initiated after above

NOTICE OF INTEREST, but not more than thirty (30) days after said Notice and NOTICES all

Parties that a Claim is fully established and diminishes any Notice of Adverse Claim by any other

possible Claimant.

 

 

NOTICE OF EXCHANGER AND TRANSFER AGENT

 

Grantor, in the Nature of an Exchanger and Insurance Adjuster , as provider of Extensions of

Credit (referenced at Title 18, Sec. 894), being the Fountain and Source of all related Labor,

Energy, and Currency, herein acknowledges and gives cognizance of Transferable Value and,

by way of Subrogation, places a transfer of Value from the Visible (vessel) to the Invisible

(ledgered Book Entry Only account wherein Grantor’s Agent is Executive Trustee/Steward and

Grantor is Beneficial Owner of account) through, by, and of, Grantor’s Acceptance of Certificate

of Live Birth (see EXHIBIT A) and Presidential Oath (See EXHIBIT F) to bring clarity and balance

in an arena whereby “Corporate Personhood propagates Unequal Protection” (see EXHIBIT ZE),

and by previously published “Testamentary Affidavit” (see EXHIBIT H) and “Letter Rogatory,

Entitlement Order, and Payment Order” (see EXHIBIT I), being autonomous, in Fact and in

Nature [under “Diplomatic Protest”] (see EXHIBIT J); and does Notice the Entire World that this

“NON-WITHHOLDING FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST,” established under the Jurisdiction of the

VENUE AND JURISDICTION STATEMENT above and under the Jurisdiction of Emperor Moytoy

and King George II in 1730 A.D. (see EXHIBIT M, N, and J) is a political construction where

Grantor and Beneficiary are the same entity and makes this Trust active in nature by Grantor’s

Pledge of Polity Will (see EXHIBIT U) with capacity to function as “Trustee” of, over, and above

the corporate fiction of all agencies of de facto government of the UNITED STATES as they (said

agencies) pertain to the “Vessel,” and, does NOTICE the entire World that Grantor is Injured,

without Cause, with Damages NOT RECOVERABLE through conventional “legal” channels (see

EXHIBIT V), and, does have Right of Restoration and Postliminy (see EXHIBIT W); and, does

demand full and honest disclosure (see EXHIBIT X); and, does explicitly rebut any assumption of

being a Franchise (see EXHIBIT Y); and, does hereby Grant, Nominate, and Appoint Rosa

Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer and her successors and assigns with the segregated safekeeping

of records under the delivery of and bearing the unique identifier of (Reg Mail) #1111 2222 3333

4444 5555 and commands the action, response, and answer be remitted in appropriate kind after

particular type and makes these further statements, to wit:

 

WHEREAS Grantor has no record or verified evidence, and believes that none exists, that

sufficiently demonstrates probable cause to believe:

1)     That a bank emergency was not declared on March 9, 1933 by President Roosevelt

because of the insolvency of the United States; and,

2)     That gold was not transferred from U.S. citizens to the UNITED STATES by Executive

Order 6102 on May 1, 1933; and,

3)     That indistinct and confusing communication and enforcement of Codes, Statutes, and

Regulations was not imposed, with unfavorable results effectuating Injuries with resultant

Damages, on those “People” commonly referred to as United States of America Citizens

and States National Citizens, who, in reality, are “Free Inhabitants,” hereinafter referred

to as “Free Inhabitants,” (See EXHIBIT H) whereby Free Inhabitants were unduly forced,

under vi et armis and threat of imprisonment, to surrender their personal and private gold

reserves under the same Statutes and Regulations imposed upon U.S. citizens (see

EXHIBIT H); and,

4)     That charges of treason and theft were not filed by Congressman Louis T. McFadden on

May 23, 1933 concerning said transfer; and,

5)     That to mitigate said charges, Congress did not pass House Joint Resolution 192 on

June 5, 1933, P.L. 73-10, and 48 stat 48, Ch 112, 113 to provide to Free Inhabitants the

right of setoff of all debt obligations as the consideration for said transfer; and,

6)     That said transfer did not create a trust(s), hereinafter “Trust” or “Trusts”; and,

7)     That TITLE 15 - Sec. 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty does not say,

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of

trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be

illegal;” and,

8)     That the right of setoff of all debt obligations is not the res of said Trust; and,

9)     That said transfer did not make Free Inhabitants the Grantors of said Trust; and,

10)  That said transfer did not make Free Inhabitants the Beneficiaries of said Trust(s) through

his own Agent; and,

11)  That Grantor is not fully Emancipated and fully released from control of any/all

guardian(s); therefore, all property, Trust(s), and endowment(s) are to be released to

Grantor; and,

12)  That Grantor is now, nor that Grantor has ever been, a/any threat to a/any Diplomatic or

Political Protectee; and,

13)  That other, various, and sundry Trusts were not created by the Application for Birth

Certificate (or, Certificate of Live Birth), Application for Social Security Administration

coverture, Application for Marriage License(s), submission and response to Military Draft,

and Application to multiple and various Agencies (vehicle registration, driver licensing,

voter registration, etc.); and,

14)  That Grantor’s “Christian Appellation” is not Private Property with exclusive Rights to said

Name; and,

15)  That all resultant “NAME(S)” are not manifestations of placement of “label(s)” onto

Trust(s) directly resultant of and connected to Grantor’s Christian Appellation; and,

16)  That the Office of Parson (See EXHIBIT G) was not established in antiquity on behalf of

Grantor; and,

17)  That Grantor, as Progenitor, did not begin Grantor’s “WILL” at conception; and,

18)  That Grantor’s WILL was not fully realized in Birth on (birthday) September 09, 1944; at

this Location upon the soil: (grid coordinates) 36.9800-92.5978; and,

19)  That Grantor’s Mother (and, Father) were not the ORIGINAL Grantor of an associated

Grantor Trust by way of “Application for Registering of Live Birth,” which became a

“Warehouse Receipt” or “Trust Receipt” (See EXHIBIT E); and,

20)  That Grantor does not hold and own “Inherent Rights” by way of “Progeny” (One born of,

begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant); and,

21)  That Inherent Rights can devolve to a “body politic” via a corporation (Rights devolve to

human beings (body politic) through and by way of a “Trust”); and,

22)  That the Certificate of Live Birth Number 123-45-678900 (Annexed as EXHIBIT A) is not

evidence of title to property being held by Trustee that is effectively connected to said

Trust; and,

23)  That the Social Security Number 123-45-6789 (Annexed as EXHIBIT B) is not evidence

of title to property being held by Trustee that is effectively connected to said Trust; and.

24)  That DD form 214 with Service Number US 56 123 456 (Annexed as EXHIBIT C) did not

establish a Trust upon “Honorable Discharge”; and,

25)  That, upon maturity at age twenty one (21) years, that Grantor did not obtain Full and

Unalienable Rights, to Grantor’s Loan of Assets under Doctrine of Usufruct and that any

UNITED STATES “attachment(s)” to Grantor’s Assets were not, technically, terminated,

with all Benefits and Accruals of Interest to be reverted back to Grantor; and,

26)  That “Rescission of Atfreightment” is not herein fully invoked by Principal “CHARTER-

PARTY” (Black’s 1st), wherein [the Master of] the “Vessel” and all principal parts thereof

are removed from contract of “merchandising” or conveyance of goods; and,

27)  That Grantor did not acquire, at mature age of twenty one (21) years, total and full rights

to Trusts Resultant, without necessity of the Guardian of the Court; and,

28)  That Grantor’s Commercial Character is not the vehicle, or device, of “Extensions of

Credit” as referenced at TITLE 18 - PART I - CH 42 - Sec. 894; and,

29)  That Transfer of Special Drawing Rights and/or IMF quotas are not directly proportional

to and/or directly connected to the Registration of Birth Certificates in/through the

Department of Commerce in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, to create and

establish a Trust with Grantor as Beneficiary; and,

30)  That the President is not the ONLY Executive Trustee of all Resultant Trusts

associated with Grantor’s “Certificate of Live Birth”; and,

31)  That Grantor’s acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United

States of America (Article 2, Section 1), is not a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill his Promise

as Executive Trustee; and,

32)  That the President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the

President (executive trustee) has with Grantor and the people (He does not have an oath

of office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers

performing under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office . He

has a Constitutional Oath ); and,

33)  That the President is Lawfully Seated in full capacity to function as Executive Trustee;

and,

34)  That transfers of Agency(ies) did not make the United States Congress, hereinafter

“Trustee,” the Trustee of said Trusts; and,

35)  That the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter “IRS”, is not an agent of Trustee; and,

36)  That the failure of IRS to ledger upon receipt the indorsed obligations of any Free

Inhabitant as a right of setoff does not constitute a breach of said Trust; and,

37)  That there is not a record of the failure, and notice thereof, of IRS to ledger upon receipt

the indorsed obligations of the Beneficiary as a right of setoff; and,

38)  That the Beneficiary is not a Free Inhabitant; and,

39)  That said record of failure of proper “ledgering” by IRS is not sufficient prima facie

evidence of breach of said Trust(s); and,

40)  That said record of failure is not available upon request from IRS or Beneficiary; and,

41)  That said record of failure is not sufficient cause for Grantor to terminate and liquidate

said trust(s); and,

42)  That Grantor cannot, for said cause, command Treasurer to terminate and liquidate said

Trust(s) immediately; and,

43)  That IRS is not required to cure said breach within twenty (20) calendar days from date of

receipt of said command and provide evidence of same to Beneficiary; and,

44)  That Grantor does not have the Right to declare “All Bets Are Off!” and remove himself

from all Tontine, Maritime, and other “wagering” and “gambling” schemes and declare

himself “Exempt” from prosecution and harassment by partakers and participants of said

wagering and gambling establishments; and,

45)  That Grantor does not have the Right to declare and demand “Cash-Out” Doctrine of Law

in an immediate and/or timely manner.

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Treasurer is hereby and herein directed by Grantor to

accordingly:

1)     Terminate and liquidate Trust upon Grantor’s Surrender of Trust Receipt, which is

identified as Certificate of Live Birth Number 123-45-678900, and return to Grantor a

statement of account thereof within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said

command (SEE EXHIBIT “A”); and,

2)     Terminate and liquidate the effectively-connected Trust identified by Social Security

Number 123-45-6789 (SEE EXHIBIT “B”) and return to Grantor a statement of account

thereof within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command; and,

3)     Terminate and liquidate any/all Trust(s) identified by United States Department of

Defense form DD 214 (SEE EXHIBIT “C”) with identifying number US 56 123 456; and,

4)     Terminate and liquidate any/all Trust(s) identified by United States Department of

Education (see EXHIBIT D); and,

5)     Make provisions that said liquidations must settle all past and current debt obligations,

secret liens, secret bonds, and Maritime liens associated with said trusts, whether

foreign, domestic, local, state or federal and whether they be in the nature of Admiralty,

Civil, Criminal, Statutory, or other de facto jurisdiction; and,

6)     Treasurer is herein directed to pay all “Service Claims” accrued when acting as fiduciary

to the Trust(s) (SEE 31 U.S.C. ß 3713 and P.L. 97-258); and,

7)     Provide Grantor with all necessary documents, certificates, instruments, forms, papers

and procedures to effect said liquidations; and,

8)     Transfer Grantor’s portion of the Public Debt as “Special Deposit” and any, and all,

remaining proceeds and interest from all related usury, into account listed under the

“CONCLUSION” section of this document  ; and,

9)     Charge all Transfer Fees and Administration Fees to said account listed under the

“CONCLUSION” section of this document  and deduct same to show balance “paid;” and,

10)  Notify all subordinate agencies, acting as Inland Pirates, operating on letters of

marque and reprisal, (Referenced at Point 28 above - Collection of extensions of credit

by extortionate means), to cease and desist any and all acts and actions against,

concerning, or involving Grantor that might, in any way, restrict Grantor’s Right of Safe

Passage upon the Common Way and Post Roads of all Territories within The United

States of America [INLAND PIRACY DEFINED: The piracy laws are found at: 18 USC,

Sec. 1650-1660, 1652 is piracy by citizens, as well as treason. This is enacted law, not

under color of law as Title 42 USC. Sec. 1652: Whoever, being a citizen of the United

States, commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States,

or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas under color of any commission from any

foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and

shall be imprisoned for life]; and,

11)  Contact Grantor at youremail@gmail.com or 1-417-123-4567 if further information is

needed to carry out these instructions.

 

CONCLUSION

There is an underlying and dominant fact that: all “money” of Exchange in circulation is counterfeit

and bears no Value; and, even the “stealing” of such is not punishable by law; and, the usage of

such “money” is contraband and taxable as wagering and gambling; and, because “Necessary

and Needful” issues of survival have created exigent circumstances upon Grantor causing the

immediate and continued use of unlawful “money”; and, there is no real “value” to any amount of

said “money” and bank notes (See EXHIBIT L – Demand for Exchange of Value); Therefore,

Grantor demands Consideration of True, Real, and Equal Value in exchange for Grantor’s

Extension of Credit (referenced at Title 18, Sec. 894) when Grantor allowed access to Grantor’s

Registry of Live Birth, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (the creation of a vessel and device in

commerce), which was “loaned” to the enterprise located within the corporate structure of the

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION located within

the geographical parameters of the City of Washington, District of Columbia.

 

Grantor, also, claims all assets ledgered within any Contra-Asset accounts, adverse accounts,

inverse accounts and other Book Entry Only ledger accounts that are, or may have been,

charged to/against Grantor through any source and recorded in New York City, or other place or

location.

 

GRANTOR COMPREHENDS that there MAY be a direct connection between “State Secrets” and

“Trade Secrets” and wishes to Honor said Secrets in Harmony within commerce and trade in the

nature of a “Protective Order,” referenced as per:

 

State Secret - Black's 8th. A government matter that would be a threat to the natural defense or

diplomatic interests of the United States if revealed; information possessed by the government

and of a military or diplomatic nature, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public

interest;

And,

Trade Secret - The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which has been adopted by approximately 46

states as the basis for trade secret law. "A trade secret, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)

(A), (B) (1996), has three parts: (1) information; (2) reasonable measures taken to protect the

information; and (3) which derives independent economic value from not being publicly known;"

And,

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 1831-1839), which makes the theft or

misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing

two sorts of activity, the first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit

foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or

economic purposes.

 

GRANTOR WISHES AND INTENDS to function in the Private Realm without intrusion into the

Public Sector as much as is reasonably possible; therefore, Grantor, herein and hereby, does

Revoke, Rescind, and Annul (or, make invalid) any/all assumed, presumed, implied, and/or

express Powers of Attorney over all acts and actions done by Grantor in the Public Sector, ab

initio and nunc pro tunc, of necessity and without recourse, to include, but not be limited to, Travel

on Post Roads and the Common Way and un-restricted use of any medium of “currency”

imposed upon Grantor; therefore, Grantor moves Treasurer to utilize Interlocking Directorates in

the nature of fiduciary and administrator and effectuate NOTICE to all related and inter-related

agencies that Grantor is NOT an Enemy of the State; and that Grantor freely exercises his Right

to Locomotion and Travel (SEE EXHIBIT “D”), at His own discretion and pleasure; and, further,

that said Agency remit to Grantor a statement of acknowledgement thereof within twenty (20)

calendar days from date of receipt of said command.

 

Rosa Gumataotao Rios, in your Personal Capacity as an employee that has received

remuneration for services rendered, or to be rendered, and in your Official Capacity as Treasurer

of the United States of America, you are herein directed to perform all stipulated and enumerated

Duties and Obligations as made specific in “NOTICE OF ABATEMENT” above; and, further, you

are CHARGED with these instructions to Liquidate the Enumerated Estates of JOHN QUINCY

JONES, as “Transmitter” of “Stored Value” (31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart A, § 103.11),

and place all assets into “Deposit Account:” ______________

 

Rosa Gumataotao Rios, your successors and/or assigns, are authorized as Fiduciary to Grantor’s

Account(s) to adjust, file, include, or otherwise make provision for internal book(s) and ledger(s)

management, including, but not limited to form(s) 1099C, 1099A, 1040V or other payment

voucher, all other pertinent forms, et cetera, to balance your books and ledgers and show

Grantor’s portion of the Public Debt as “forgiven” and/or “discharged” and satisfy General

Accounting Office requirements.

 

UPON COMPLETION OF ABOVE COMMANDS, Grantor agrees and pledges Fidelity to His

Commercial Character with intent to never again dishonor the Creator or man by charging for

labor or delaying payment for debts; further, Grantor agrees, by this pledge, to Indemnify and

Hold Harmless all former Trustee(s), Handler(s), and Manager(s) for any/all injuries and/or

damages done to Grantor in the past; and Grantor pursues Harmony in commerce that continuity

may not be impeded; therefore, Grantor says:

 

I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, in this Affidavit and Declaration, instituted and established

after date of majority and re-affirmed on the first above mentioned date, being competent to take

control of my own financial affairs of estate and able to honor all claims, do fully accept all

charges and allegations placed to/against my account(s) and do declare under penalty of perjury,

without United States, to be a Statesman of the Missouri Republic and a Statesman of the

Aniyvwiya (I suggest you use Cherokee) Nation, Category Four (4) [non-treaty] Aboriginal North

American Natives.

 

By Grantor,                                                                                     

                                                                                      Date/Seal

Under duress per minas, ephemeral and desultory codes, statutes, and

regulations with protest affirmed, without United States.

 

JURAT

State of ____________________           )

                                                )    ss

County of ___________________          )

 

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 20____,

by the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory

evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

 

______________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: ___________           (seal)

 

 

John-Quincy:

of the Jones Family/Clan - Progenitor

LIEN CREDITOR, LIEN CLAIMANT

c/o 123 West Columbus Street

Somewhere, Missery [12345]

 

 

 

"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life,

but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his

liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave

him a slave."  

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS AND DIRECTIVES

 

This “Brief” is a Summary of Statements, Claims, and Directives attributed to the various Parties

effected by acts and actions, or the lack thereof, made particular to, and within, attached and

annexed Documents and Supporting Documents, summarized, to wit:

 

ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, Statement from “Public Debt: Private Asset,” published by the

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in January 1999, on page four (4) under “Debt as an Asset” it

states:

“The bank owes us the money that is in our account.

 

… for every debt incurred someone acquires a financial asset of equal value. Debt, then, is

considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the

debtor.

 

In terms of the national debt , every dollar of the government’s debt is some-one’s asset .

Corporations, brokerage houses, bond-trading firms, foreign national, and U.S. citizens, both

here and abroad, are all willing to loan money to the U.S. government. They view the loan as

an investment, an asset that increases their wealth .” [Emphasis added for clarity, End of

quote]

 

ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, an act of “perfidy” is a deliberate breach of faith and a calculated

violation of trust; also, it is treachery and the act or an instance of treachery.

 

ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, "Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection

thereto." MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305. Therefore, by way of “objection,”

Grantor, herein and forever after, demands liquidation and complete transfer of Grantor’s Assets

held “In Trust” at/in the various Contra Asset, Inverse, Adverse, and/or other accounts that are

under the regulation and control of the Treasurer of the United States or the Secretary of the

Treasury and held in the name of JOHN QUINCY JONES (or, any derivatives of said name) and

any/all vessel(s) with numbered accounts that are derivative of Application for Certificate of Live

Birth (Birth Certificate) and/or any/all social security program(s), as made more specific in Main

Document titled “CHARGING ORDER, WILL, and TESTAMENT,” be immediately transferred into

Grantor’s Trust Account located at/in FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA, Legacy

Treasury Direct (routing number) 0310-9999-6, Account ___________ in the form of Treasury

Obligations, of Grantor’s choosing, that are NOT Federal Reserve Notes. Grantor, herein, directs

Treasurer to deduct any fees that may be applicable from Grantors Estate and make entry on

ledger of such deductions.

 

F.M. (famous mark) _______________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

Augus 18, 2010

Douglas Duff:  deus.juvat.duff@gmail.com

 

Corporate Law

Go Back

Related in this Category

Can a Land Patent SAVE YOUR HOME? - Even if you are NOT in foreclosure?

Regain control of your land through a Land Patent process

HUGE LAND PATENT VICTORY IN WISCONSIN FREE STATE TODAY!!!

OPEN LETTER TO AGENTS OF THE CROWN

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH