Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist with New Eastern Outlook. She is the author of EXILE, which discusses the circumstances under which she fled the United States. Janet focuses on issues related to legal corruption and maintains a special interest in biological weapons. Cary Andrew Crittenden is an activist who is currently incarcerated in Santa Clara County Jail. Crittenden has become outspoken against corruption in Santa Clara County and has now been repeatedly jailed in that locale.
Breaking News Patriot whistleblower Woman Needs support
Life or death phone blitz ! I do not use these words lightly ! Jodi Davies tomorrow in Port Huron Mich. will be locked into a mental ward and forcibly injected to where she will require a diaper. she is of healthy mind and body , a brilliant and caring former VA nurse who exposed corruption. This is exactly what was done to Alexander Solzenetzin author of Gulag Archepelago : corrupt corporate government labeling patriots as mentally ill because we are smart enough to notice the corruption. Judges Tomlinson and chief judge Dave Kelly are about to commit murder: 810-985-2160/2060/2066 the court has seized Jodis assets including her 1700 dollar monthly social security. Guardians have been appointed to manage the theft and they refuse to talk with Jodi even though they are required to do so. Call them: Julie Marriot 810-985-2174 of course the real power player behind it all : archbishop Allen Vigneron 313-237-5816 if he’s a godly man FIX THIS PROBLEM !! CourtroomObservers &Studio1776.org
a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.
Whistle-blower is a term to describe insiders who come forward to expose wrongdoings and corruption in government and business . These are VERY BRAVE people on whom the truth-seeking public relies for information about government and corporate criminals . we need many more insiders to use their conscience and come forward to reveal the hidden truths . i do not really like the term ‘whistle blower’ because it has negative connotations and therefore i prefer the term ‘truth-teller’ . lets encourage and protect them . thank everyone for me for staying very close and on top of this case . this is an extreme violation of Jodis rights and freedoms . Thanks again
No accusation of any crime whatsover . She has not been indicted or even arrested . They have no material evidence of any crime or offense . She is obviously not a danger to herself or others . Difficult to believe isnt it ? Its happening . apparantly her mother is taking the side of the corrupt coporate court because the family wants to sell the grandmothers house where grandma and Jodi live and the mother cannot get her hands on the money until the house is empty and grandma is institionalized alomg with Jodi . also lots of state money for the witches court and the mental hospital so there is the incentive of greed plus they can quiet a patriot and truth-teller ….
Please listen to an emergency interview with Jodi in Michigan , probate court destroying her life , is attempting to medicate and involuntarily inject a woman against her will by psychiatric Drugs to steal her social security payments and lock her up in a psych ward in St. Clair County Community Mental Health facility on Wednesday morning after researching because she is a whistleblower. Jodi Davies is totally normal. Jodi Davies :get details and hear interview on Studio1776.org
“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.” Martin_Niemöller
Please call Judge John D Tomlinson behalf of Jodi Davies tell him you’re watching this case!
Circuit Court Family Division
Rights and Legal Issues – Involuntary Commitment
Medicating Patients Involuntarily at Psychiatric Hospitals
Medicating Patients Involuntarily at Psychiatric Hospitals (Word* | also in PDF*)
All hospital patients with unimpaired capacity have the right to consent to or refuse treatment unless there is an emergency. In light of this right to informed consent, a patient can only be medicated involuntarily if
- a guardian for the incapacitated patient consents,
- the incapacitated patient has an advance directive that allows treatment over objection,
- a District Court has ordered treatment with an involuntary commitment,
- treatment is authorized following a clinical review panel,
- treatment is authorized following an administrative hearing, or
- a psychiatric emergency exists.
This summary is just an overview of the applicable laws. For more complete information, you should refer directly to statutes about guardianship and advance directives, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/18-A/title18-Ach5sec0.html ; to the statutes about involuntary commitment with involuntary treatment ordered, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/34-B/title34-Bsec3864.html; to the statute about clinical review panel process,http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/34-B/title34-Bsec3861.html; or to the Rights of Recipients of Adult Mental Health Services regulation RightsRecipientsconcerning administrative hearings for involuntary treatment or treatment during psychiatric emergencies.
For more complete information related to the content and effect of advance directives, go to the Maine Disability Rights Center’s Advanced Health Care Directives Manual http://www.drcme.org/Handbooks.html
St. Clair County Community Mental Health is governed by a 12-member board of directors.
St. Clair County Community Mental Health
3111 Electric Avenue
Port Huron Michigan 48060
Phone: (810) 985-8900
Advisory Council for Families & Persons with Developmental Disabilities of St. Clair County
The Advisory Council for Families and Persons with Developmental Disabilities of St. Clair County advises the Adult & Family Services Division of St. Clair County CMH. The membership consists of interested residents of St. Clair County; representatives of individuals receiving CMH services and their families, and representatives of advocacy organizations and human service agencies serving people with developmental disabities.
For more information, contact Tracy Duncan at (810) 985-8900.
Advisory Council for Families and Persons with Mental Illness of St. Clair County
The Advisory Council for Families and Persons with Mental Illness advises the Adult and Family Services division of St. Clair County CMH. The membership consists of St. Clair County residents who represent individuals receiving CMH services and their families; representatives of advocacy organizations and human service agencies serving individuals with mental illness; and other interested community members.
For more information, contact Tracy Matthews at (810) 985-8900.
Board of Directors – Meeting Schedule
The board meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
- 1/18/2016 at 6:01:03 PM 120 minutes
- SHORT LINK:
- Federal Eye
Millions over age 112 have Social Security numbers, and it’s not because we’re living longer
Please help get these on all your social sites!!!
“THIS is all about URANIUM! The feds and the BLM are working to “clear the land” for Australian Portland based, “Oregon Energy” which has big plans to mine most of the SE section of that county, where most of the URANIUM deposits are. This is big money! Why is nobody talking about this?”
Federal facility in remote southeastern BURNS, Oregon Malheur National Wildlife 187,000-acre refuge in Harney County, headquarters that has been held by called anti-government occupiers that have been for the past two weeks a growing siege staged to protest the imprisonment of two local ranchers and a federal government that they say is out of control. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt, sits in a vast high-desert basin circled. Burns, a town of 2,800 and the county seat, is 30 miles away on a narrow, two-lane road.
Please listen and share to the following interview about the Feds and BLM’S land grab for URANIUM!
UN’s own website, is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups, in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
“Sustainable development” is the catch-phrase Beck urged his Monday evening viewers to be leery of.
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction). For further reading about this at bottom of this post!
EMINENT DOMAIN. The power to take private property for public use. MacVeagh v. Multonomah County, 126 Or. 417, 270 P. 502, 507. The right of eminent domain is the right of the state, through its regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the state on account of public exigency and for the public good. Thus, in time of war or insurrection, the proper authorities may possess and hold any part of the territory of the state for the common safety; and in time of peace the legislature may authorize the appropriation of the same to public purposes, such as the opening of roads, construction of defenses, or providing channels for trade or travel. The right of society, or of the sovereign, to dispose, in case of necessity, and for the public safety, of all the wealth contained in the state, is called “eminent domain.” Jones v. Walker, 2 Paine, 688, Fed.Cas.No.7,507. Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. It gives a right to resume the possession of the property in the manner directed by the constitution and the laws of the state, whenever the public interest requires it. Beekman v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 3 Paige, N.Y., 45, 73, 22 Am. Dec. 679. “The exaction of money from individuals under the right of taxation, and the appropriation of private property for public use by virtue of the power of eminent domain, must not be confused. In paying taxes the citizen contributes his just and ascertained share to the expenses of the government under which he lives. But when his property is taken under the power of eminent domain, he is compelled to surrender to the public something above and beyond his due proportion for the public benefit. The matter is special. It is in the nature of a compulsory sale to the state.” Black, Tax-Titles, § 3; Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 234 Ala. 249, 174 So. 516, 520. The term “eminent domain” is sometimes (but inaccurately) applied to the land, buildings, etc., owned directly by the government, and which have not yet passed into any private ownership. This species of property is much better designated as the “public domain,” or “national domain.” http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/Books/Black’s%20Law%204th%20edition,%201891.pdf
Posted on Freedom Advocates on March 3rd 2004
BREAKING: Harney Co Fire Chief Resigns. FBI Caught Posing As Militia At Local Armory
Offensive or Defensive? #OccupyMalheur Part 1
Be sure to catch part 2….. Jimmie Carter regime exposed!! The game has been ongoing for quite sometime now!
Not real big on Pete as he comes off as another “Shockjock” like Alex Jones and has a tendency to push too hard, at the wrong time. But, that’s just me….
Wednesday – 1/13/16 – Update (1) from Malheur Wildlife Refuge In Burns, Oregon – #OregonFront Pete Santilli Show
Secrecy is repugnant to a free society and the breeding ground for corruption & tyranny. I have no problem with Authority, I have a problem with TPtSB’s perceived authority.
Do you hear what I hear???? I am calling the Kings and Queens to come regain their rightful Crowns!
Johnny B of the Clan Mikel www.johnnybfrommissouri.com
This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
In rem jurisdiction
||The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide viewof the subject. (January 2013)|
In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction).
Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court’s jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel.
Within the American state court systems, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person’s marital status. State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state’s boundaries.
A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.
Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as “John Doe, Unknown owner of (Property)”, but as just “Ex Parte (property)” or perhaps the awkward “State v. (Property)”, usually followed by a notice by publication seeking claimants to title to the property; see examples below. This last style is awkward because in law, only a person may be a party to a judicial proceeding – hence the more common in personam style – and a non-person would at least have to have a guardian appointed to represent its interests, or the interests of the unknown owner.
The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.
- Case of One 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, VIN: JN1C214SFX069854, 889 F.2d 1317. 1989 case heard by the Fourth Circuit using the older naming style, because the owner was murdered before the government could arrest him on suspicion of drug trafficking.
- U. S. v. 422 Casks of Wine (1828), an early 19th-century example
- United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola (1916), brought under the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) against, not The Coca Cola Company itself, but rather “Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola”.
- United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar — Early Food and Drug Administration case.
- United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile (1926)
- United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936), a case involving contraceptives Margaret Sanger attempted to import, heard by the Second Circuit.
- United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F.Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1941)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, the landmark 1933 ruling by John M. Woolsey that James Joyce‘s novel had sufficient literary merit to overcome its obscene portions. Upheld on appeal as United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce.
- Marcus v. Search Warrant, full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. An unusual in rem case heard by the Supreme Court where the named object was not the seized property but the warrant under which it was seized. Since all the government agents involved were indisputably acting within the law as it stood, the only way for the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure was to name the search warrant itself as defendant.
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case holding seizure of allegedly obscene materials unconstitutional without prior hearing to determine obscenity.
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule prevents the forfeiture of material seized in cases where the Fourth Amendment was violated.
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts, case involving Fanny Hill, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 (full title: A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”, et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, an obscenity forfeiture case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, a case very similar to the above heard by the Supreme Court two years later.
- United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976). Held that the seizure provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act do not violate the Due Process Clause.
- People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991)
- R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, R.M.S. Titanic 286 F.3d 194 (2d Cir., 2002) – here distinguishing between plaintiff (company) and object, of the same name; in full the case also named persons as defendants, and identifies the object more precisely as:
- The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, its engines, tackle apparel, appurtenances, cargo, etc., located within one (1) nautical mile of a point located at 41° 43′ 32″ North Latitude and 49° 56′ 49″ West Longitude, believed to be the R.M.S. Titanic, in rem;
- United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency (2006), an asset forfeiture case based on drug law.
- United States v. 127 Shares of Stock in Paradigm Mfg., 758 F.Supp. 581. A 1990 case from California where a former spouse and children sought to recover securities allegedly purchased with the husband/father’s proceeds from drug sales.
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case involving eminent domain, holding that cost of replacement for taken property does not have to be calculated in its fair market value.
- United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins (9th Cir., 2008). Asset forfeiture case under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000.
- United States v. Various Pieces of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, 649 F.2d 606 (8th Cir., 1981). Company that was caught trying to sell them to the Soviets claims the long delay between seizure and forfeiture proceedings was a due process violation.
- United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton (2012). The case was brought to stop the sale of a dinosaur skeleton that had allegedly been looted from the Gobi desert in violation of Mongolian law.
Some content on this page was disabled on June 14, 2018 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from Thomson Reuters. You can learn more about the DMCA here:
- in Prepping
Revocation of the Birth Certificate
I thought a good place to start would be with the revocation of the Birth Certificate. I think that if more people knew about this information, we as good Americans could take back our country from the criminal corporate Banksters. With the truth and the Laws on our side we as Patriotic American who knowing and following the true laws of the Land! So I give you the key to freedom its knowledge and knowledge is power! Do with it what you must to set yourself free!
*** Attention: By following these instructions you assume all responsibility and liability for your own actions ***
That is to say, corporate personhood is fraud… So is our birth certificate.
How to cancel a birth bond:
1) print out a birth certificate change form; some financial birth bonds have a change form on the back.
2) enter these three field to be changed: State file id number, date of birth, and “name” as per stated on the bond.
3) enter the values as currently indicated
4) leave the change-to values blank
5) find a religious reason for cancelation. Reincarnation is a great reason. The soul is not born when the body is… It existed before and will exist after we pass on. Internet search for a reincarnation quote from a Zen Buddhist/Daoist master and print it out with a statement like “I am canceling my birth certificate because my soul existed before I was born”
6) above your signature write “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308″
7) make a copy for your records
8) send it in to your state location
This terminates the fraud known as the birth bond.
Revocation of Birth Certificate
Return receipt requested
Parents name’s Father: Mother:
Rescission of Contract and Revocation of Power Asservation
We, and , freeborn Christian
Americans by birth, and parents of , born in the county of
, in State USA, on the day
of , in the year of our Messiah nineteen hundred ninety five, subject to the
laws of Nature and Nature’s God, do hereby state the following to be true and correct
to the best of our knowledge and ability:
1. That this document has been prepared, witnessed and filed because the State of
holds the position that there are no statutory provisions to rescind a birth
certificate, nor any trust or contractual obligations derived therefrom, and because there is no
remedy available at law by which we can declare and enforce the right of our child to be free
from State enfranchisement and benefits or losses derived therefrom.
2. That when our child was born, we were under the misconception that we had to secure
a certificate of birth in behalf of our child, and obtained the same.
3. That we were not aware that in common law, births were to be recorded in the family Bible
as lawful documentation, and only deaths were a matter of public record.
4. That we were not aware that any certificates required by statute to be made by officers
may be used as evidence, and therefore they were acquiescing to State requirements which
violate our child’s right to privacy and the 4th Amendment protection under the constitution
for the United States, as the birth certificate is the record of the State, not the Citizen, and the
State may be compelled to produce said record without my permission.
5. That such practices are deceitful misrepresentations by the State and society on the
recording of births, and we were not aware that a birth certificate was unnecessary, nor that
we were possibly waiving some of our child’s rights.
6. That the doctor who delivered our child acted as a licensed agent of the State without
our consent, and offered our child into State trust to be regulated as other State and
corporate interests and property as a result of the offer and acceptance, which comprises
a friction of law under statutory law. (referred to as contracts of adhesion)
7.That from our religious training and convictions we have determined that the right to be
born comes from the Creator (who knew our child before he/she existed) and not the
State, and therefore the original jurisdiction upon our child’s behavior requiring a specific
performance comes from his personal relationship with his/her God and Creator, unless
said performance causes a damage or injury to another natural person.
8. That after studying the birth certificate issue we have come to conclude that the birth
certificate creates a legal estate in itself and acts as a nexus to bring actions against this
natural person as if he were a corporate entity. The State uses the birth certificate to assume
jurisdiction over areas of our child’s life that are in direct conflict with his/her God given,
constitutionally guaranteed, unalienable rights.
9. That such statutory provisions cause a loss or diminution of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th, and 9th Amendment rights.
10. That as a result of our studies our ignorance has come to end and we have
reclaimed the Birthright of our child and have declared as Sovereign American Citizens
originating from our Creator, YAHWEH God. Therefore it is necessary that we declare his/her
nexus by the State as a result of the birth certificate and any jurisdiction or other rights that
may have been waived as a result of the birth certificate to be null and void due to deceit, fraud,
and incapacity perpetrated upon us and our child by the State, the third party to the
11. This notice of revocation is also based upon our rights with respect to constructive fraud
and misrepresentation as established in, but no limit to, the case of Tyler v. Secretary of State,
184 A2d 101 (1962) and also El paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240
(1979) , which stated ” Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation
of an instrument”. As Sovereign American Citizens who are not a creation of the State, nor subject
to the State’s laws in admiralty, maritime or equity jurisdiction, hereby reclaim our child’s
Unalienable rights granted by his Creator.
Pursuant to 28 USC 1746(I) and executed “without the United States ,” I affirm under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, to the
best of my belief and knowledge. Further This Affiant Saith Not.
We hereby affix our own signature with explicit reservation of ALL our unalienable rights and
without prejudice to any of those rights (U.C.C.1-207).
Notary of the public
Okay, lets take this as it needs to be stated. A “Citizen” belongs to the state, whether there is a capital “C” for a common law citizen, or a small “c”, denoting citizenship awarded under the 14th amendment.
A “sovereign” is one with full sovereign power. A “Sovereign Individual”, as defined and recognized by the Supreme Court of the united States of America, is one of the “People” a.k.a the founding fathers or the others that fought and won in the revolutionary war, or their “Prosperity”, any of their progeny, or any common law or 14th amendment citizen, who through the compact of the Constitution of the united States of America LENDS any part of their sovereign power to the government.
An “adhesion contract” is a contract whereby through your acceptance of a benefit, you also LEND or GIVE away another sovereign to those that represent you. When you file for social security, you contract to become a ward of the state, stating you are incompetent to provide for your future needs without it’s interference, and by accepting their matching funds, you contract to pay for that funding with taxes as a corporation.
However, you are never disclosed that fact. So under UCC 1-207 which was renumbered to 308 to confuse the issue, you did not sign that contract “knowingly, willingly and intentionally” which is required for a contract to be binding, as the “meeting of the minds” element cannot be met without full disclosure of all of the elements of the contract, including your self incrimination to being “incompetent” under the 5th Amendment.
This is why an “out” is still maintained in the form of an SS revision form to withdraw as a corporation. Such a withdrawal then removes you from the tax system, as the code (Title 26) self defines it’s authority as binding only to 1. Elected Officials, 2. Government employees, -AND- 3. Officers of a Corporation (Which your application for a SS# creates out of you).
This all boils down to 2 simple issues.
1. NEVER use the term “Sovereign Citizen”, especially in a public venue (such as this very web page.
The term is a legal Oxymoron with no standing, which in court will make you look as incompetent as they claim you to be. Always use the term “Sovereign Individual” as the very term itself was coined by, and is fully recognized by, the SCOTuSOA.
This and puts everyone on notice that you are NOT incompetent.
2. Be ready to educate yourself to defend that position in the Courts. If you can’t explain the position with reason and precedence, dont take the battle on, as you will do more damage that good to the movement itself. Every withdrawee that cannot show WHY his position is correct, even if it is correct, is labeled as a tax protestor and the buffoons of the world start trying to convince the uneducated masses that the withdrawees position is a scam based on rulings against them, even though those rulings do not say the position IS a scam, but only that the “protestor” was unconvincing in their presentment of evidence, and thus was ruled against…
In law, it’s not enough to say the sky is blue”, you have to be able to state with convincing corroborative evidence that what they see is “blue”, that everyone sees the same “blue”, and why they should accept the empirical collective evidence of the “opinions” of everybody else, as “lawfully correct”…
Posterity United Montana Assembly
Example: Revocation of Birth Certificate
FROM: John Q. Doe
c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
TO: Registry of Vital Records
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
c/o general delivery
TO: Social Security Administration
Office of the Commissioner
c/o general delivery
NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT
AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION
California State/Republic )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
Marin County )
I, John Q. Doe, being natural born in Massachusetts a male human being, now living in Marin County, California Republic, as a Citizen in the California Republic, do hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of California and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all government agencies when dealing with them. Wherefore, the undersigned Affiant named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and evidences the following:
I, the undersigned, a natural born free Sovereign Citizen in the California Republic, and thereby in the United States of America, hereby affirm, declare and give notice:
- That I am competent to testify to the matters herein; and further,
- That I have personal knowledge of my status and of the facts and evidence stated herein; and further,
- That all the facts stated herein are not hearsay but true and correct, and admissible as evidence, if not rebutted; and further,
- That I, John Q. Doe, am of lawful age and competent; I am a natural born free Sovereign Citizen now living in the California Republic, and thereby in the United States of America, in fact, by right of heritage, a Citizen inhabiting the California Republic, protected by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Organic Act of 1849, the original Constitution of California (1849), the Articles of Confederation (1777), the Constitution for the United States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the Bill of Rights (1791) including its Preamble; and as such I retain all my fundamental, unalienable rights granted by God in positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and binding rights upon myself and my parentage, this day and for all time; and further,
- That this document has been prepared, witnessed and filed because the State of Massachusetts holds the position that there are no statutory provisions to rescind a Birth Certificate, nor any trust or contractual obligations derived therefrom, and because there is no other remedy available to me At Law by which I can declare and enforce my right to be free from State enfranchisement and the benefits therefrom; and further,
- That, on my birthday, ___ / ___ / ___, I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts to my parents, James F. Doe and Jane M. (Smith) Doe, who were both under the misconception that they were required to secure a Certificate of Birth on my behalf, and they did obtain the same; and further,
- That my parents were not aware that, at the Common Law, births were to be recorded in the family Bible, and that only deaths were made a matter of public record; and further,
- That my parents were not aware that any certificate required by statute to be made by officers may, as a rule, be introduced into evidence (see Marlowe v. School District, 116 Pac 797) and, therefore, they were acquiescing to State requirements which violate my rights to privacy and the 4th Amendment protections under the Constitution for the United States of America, because the Birth Certificate is the record of the State of Massachusetts, not of the individual, and the State may be compelled to introduce said record without my permission; and further,
- That such statutory practices by the State of Massachusetts are deceitful misrepresentations by the State and society, on the recording of births, and my parents were unaware that a Birth Certificate was not necessary, nor were they aware that they were possibly waiving some of my rights, which rights are unalienable rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution for the United States of America; and further,
- That the doctor who delivered me acted as a licensed agent of the State of Massachusetts without the consent of either my own parents or myself, and offered me into a State trust to be regulated as other State and corporate interests and property as a result of that offer and acceptance, which comprises a fiction of law under statutory law (called contracts of adhesion, contracts implied by law, constructive contracts, quasi contracts, also referred to as implied consent legislation); and further,
- That, from my own spiritual beliefs and training, I have come, and I have determined that the right to be born comes, from God Almighty (who knew me before I existed) — not the State of Massachusetts and not the State of California — and therefore original jurisdiction upon my behavior requiring any specific performance comes from my personal relationship with God Almighty, unless said performance causes demonstrable damage or injury to another natural human being;and further,
- That, after studying the Birth Certificate, I have come to the conclusions that the Birth Certificate creates a legal estate in myself, and acts as the nexus to bring actions against this individual as if he were a corporate entity, that the State of Massachusetts, in cooperation with the federal government and its agents and assigns, is maintaining the Birth Certificate so as to assume jurisdiction over many aspects of my life in direct contravention of my unalienable rights and Constitutionally secured rights to be a “Freeman” and to operate at the Common Law; and further,
- That such statutory provisions also cause a loss or diminution (depending upon other statutory provisions) of rights guaranteed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th amendments in the Constitution for the United States of America; and further,
- That, as a result of my earnest and diligent studies, my prior ignorance has come to an end, and I have regained my capacity to be an American Freeman; therefore, it is now necessary that I declare any nexus assumed as a result of the Birth Certificate, by the State of Massachusetts or by any of its agents and assigns, including the federal government, and any jurisdictional or other rights that may be waived as a result of said trust/contract with all forms of government,to be null and void from its inception, due to the deceptive duress, fraud, injury, and incapacity perpetrated upon my parents and myself by the State of Massachusetts, the third party to the contract; and further,
- That I was neither born nor naturalized in the “United States” as defined in Title 26, United States Codes and, therefore, I am not subject to its foreign jurisdiction. See 26 CFR 1.1-1(b)-(c); and further,
- That, with this revocation of contract and the revocation of power, I do hereby claim all of my rights, all of my unalienable rights and all rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America, At Law, and do hereby declare, to one and all, that I am a free and independent Citizen now inhabiting the California Republic, who is not a creation of, nor subject to any State’s civil law of admiralty, maritime, or equity jurisdictions and, as such, I am only attached to the judicial Power of California and/or the United States of America; and further,
- That I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America, without the “United States” (see 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution), that the Preamble and Sections 1 thru 16 of this Affidavit, are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of my knowledge; and further,
- That my use of the phrase “WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)” above my signature on this document indicates: that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not; that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the “Remedy” they must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally; that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements; and that my valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel. And,
Further This Affiant Saith Not.
Subscribed and affirmed to, Nunc Pro Tunc, on the date of my majority, which date was ___ / ___ / ___.
Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this __________________ day of
__________________________, 199___ Anno Domini.
I now affix my signature to all of the affirmations herein WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207):
John Q. Doe, Citizen/Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights.
John Q. Doe
c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
California All-Purpose Acknowledgement
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
COUNTY OF MARIN )
On the ______ day of ____________, 199___ Anno Domini, before me personally appeared John Q. Doe, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His signature on this instrument the Person, or the entity upon behalf of which the Person acted, executed the instrument. Purpose of Notary Public is for identification only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
April 3, 1992
Department of Public Health
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
c/o general delivery
Boston [ZIP code exempt]
RE: NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION
Your letter to me dated March 23, 1992 acknowledges receipt of my signed and notarized revocation affidavit, referenced above. I am writing this letter in order to address the two statements contained in your letter, and to rebut any presumptions which could or might be conclusively established by allowing your two statements to remain unchallenged.
Statement #1: “This letter is to inform you that there is no provision under Massachusetts law to rescind a properly filed birth certificate.”
Although this statement may, in fact, be technically and generally true, it is irrelevant to the specific issue at hand, for several reasons. First of all, it implies that my original birth certificate, on file in your office, was “properly filed”. You have made this statement contrary to numerous facts which are contained in my revocation affidavit. You have now had ample opportunity to rebut any and all of those facts, and you have not done so. Accordingly, your failure to rebut anyof those facts now renders them all conclusive, permanently for the record. You are now forever barred and estopped from challenging those facts as stated. Therefore, my original birth certificate was not “properly filed” as you incorrectly attempt to imply.
As a member of the Sovereignty by right of birth and hereditary succession, I belong to that group of people by whose authority the Massachusetts State Constitution was created. The Massachusetts State Legislature was created, in turn, by that Constitution. The “Massachusetts law” to which you refer is, in turn, a creation of that Legislature. Regardless of your status prior to becoming a State employee, your current status as a State employee necessarily subjects you to the letter of that “law”. I am not subject either to the letter or to the spirit of that law, however.
Even though you are evidently restricted by law from unilaterally rescinding a birth certificate, I am not subject to any such a restriction. As someone who has explicitly reserved all my unalienable rights without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights, I specifically retain my right to unilaterally revoke and cancel my original birth certificate, for the several reasons stated in my affidavit, and to render it null and void from its inception. The affidavit which I have filed with your office is prima facie evidence that I have, in fact, exercised that right, the exercise of which is entirely within my Sovereign power and authority to do.
Moreover, you are evidently unaware of my prior written correspondence with Governor William F. Weld, in which I documented the fraud to which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is an “accommodation party” as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code. If you have any need to obtain copies of this correspondence between me and Governor Weld, I recommend that you first contact the Governor’s staff for assistance. Alternatively, Governor Weld’s office has personally informed me that my notice to him, with attachments, has now been forwarded to the offices of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senate, Washington, District of Columbia. Governor Weld’s office did not challenge or rebut any statement of fact contained in my correspondence to him, except to suggest incorrectly that the issues which I raised were not within his jurisdiction. Senator Kennedy’s office has not responded to me in any way concerning the materials which he received from Governor Weld.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is bound by the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (see MCLA c 106 Section 1-207). The conclusive facts as stated in my revocation affidavit now constitute material proof that my original birth certificate was an unconscionable contract ab initio because, among other reasons, it was lacking in meaningful choice on my part. You have already been notified, and I hereby notify you again, that I have explicitly reserved all my unalienable rights, without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights. This means that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon all agencies of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not.
Furthermore, my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon all agencies of government, including but not limited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of the “Remedy” which you must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
My explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon all agencies of government, including but not limited to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all of its assignees, that they are all limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements (see UCC 3-305(2)(c)). You are under the obligation of good faith imposed at several places in the Uniform Commercial Code (see, e.g., 1-203). My valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.
Statement #2: “For this reason, your birth certificate on file in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts remains valid.”
This statement is clearly incorrect because it is a non sequitor, in light of my responses in this letter to Statement #1, and particularly in light of the conclusive facts as stated in my revocation affidavit. As an unconscionable contract the primary purpose of which was to offer me into a State trust, to be regulated as other State and corporate interests without my full consent of majority, this birth certificate is null and void from its inception, as are any rights of interest which may, now or in the future, be claimed as a result of any conveyance or reconveyance thereof to undisclosed third parties.
Your attempt to assert its validity in the face of contrary evidence is noted and can be used as prima facie evidence of your willingness to violate and otherwise contravene my unalienable rights and my Constitutionally secured rights as a Sovereign Freeman. These rights include, but are not limited to, those which are enumerated in my revocation affidavit.
You are hereby warned that you can and will be held personally liable for any further attempts to violate my fundamental, unalienable rights by acts on your part which attempt to compel my specific performance to any third-party debt or obligation created through the unlawful conveyance, conversion or other instrumentality of an invalid birth certificate. As an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are under a legal obligation to recognize that “Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument,” El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979). Your ignorance of the law is no excuse in this matter. If you are unsure about your own legal situation in this matter, may I recommend that you contact the State Attorney General’s office for advice and assistance.
For your information, I am not subject to any foreign jurisdiction by reason of any contract or commercial agreement resulting in adhesion thereto across America, nor are millions of other Sovereign Citizens, unless they have provided waivers of rights guaranteed by the Constitution by means of knowingly intelligent acts, such as contracts or commercial agreements with such government(s) “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences”, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). I have given no such waivers, nor is it possible that I could have given such waivers by reason of a birth certificate executed by other parties long before I was even able to speak or write, and long before my age of majority. Therefore, the birth certificate at issue is necessarily null and void, ab initio, notwithstanding any and all unsubstantiated statements by you to the contrary.
If I do not hear from you within ten (10) calendar days of the above date, I will be entitled to the conclusive presumption that this matter is settled. Thank you very much for your consideration.
John Q. Doe, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
copies: Senator Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
Social Security Administration
Egypt’s Prime Minister Sherif Ismail (2nd L) and Tourism Minister Hisham Zaazou look at the remains of a Russian airliner which crashed in central Sinai near El Arish city, north Egypt, October 31, 2015. The Airbus A321, operated by Russian airline Kogalymavia under the brand name Metrojet, carrying 224 passengers crashed into a mountainous area of Egypt’s Sinai peninsula on Saturday shortly after losing radar contact near cruising altitude, killing all aboard. REUTERS/Stringer TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
ISLAMIC State militants have claimed responsibility for the downing of a Russian passenger plane which crashed in Egypt killing 224 people. Putin declared a day of national mourning for Sunday. The passengers included 214 Russians and three Ukrainians.
The Kremlin is defending its right to protect its people and interests in Russia and abroad. Intelligence officials have reported that Russia is moving its tactical nuclear units closer to its international boundaries. Putin has…
View original post 120 more words