40a4ab10ef32733b7f51dbfc1a30c3a5_XLTexas lawmaker Dan Flynn has introduced legislation that would invalidate within the sovereign borders of his state every act of the federal government that exceeds its constitutionally derived authority.

State Representative Dan Flynn’s bill — House Bill 98 — denies to the federal government:

the power to take any legislative, executive, or judicial action that violates the constitution, specifically including those actions that unconstitutionally undermine, diminish, or disregard the balance of powers between the states and the federal government established by the constitution.

Flynn goes on to cite chapter and verse of the Constitution and the principles of federalism in defense of his position that the state of Texas retains the power to refuse to carry out federal mandates that are not specifically authorized in the Constitution’s enumeration of federal powers.

Beyond his understanding of core concepts of federalism, Flynn is to be commended for the bold warning he included in his legislation:

This Act serves as notice from this state to the federal government to cease and desist any and all unconstitutional activities that are outside the scope of the power delegated to it by the United States Constitution, including those activities that unconstitutionally undermine, diminish, or disregard the balance of powers between the states and the federal government established by the constitution.

This state and its people retain their sovereign power to regulate the affairs of this state, subject only to the limitations prescribed by the United States Constitution.

Nothing more needs to be said. Flynn’s bill, officially titled the Texas Balance of Powers Act, is a full-throated defiance of federal tyranny and attempts to subjugate the states into nothing more that administrative sub-units of the plutocracy on the Potomac.

Representative Flynn seems to appreciate the fact that states are not left defenseless in the battle to fight the cancer of consolidation. There is a remedy — a “rightful remedy” — that can immediately retrench the federal government’s constant overreaching. This antidote can stop the poison of all unconstitutional federal acts and executive orders at the state borders and prevent them from working on the people.

The remedy for federal tyranny is nullification, and applying it liberally will leave our states and our nation healthier and happier.

The bill creates a Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification composed of key officers in the Texas state government that will be charged with “review[ing] any federal action to determine whether the action is an unconstitutional federal action.”

Texas — and her sister states — retain this right of refusal owing to their role as creators of the federal government.

The states created the federal government and reserve the right to resist the exercise by Congress of any powers not specifically granted to it by the states in the Constitution.

The documents sent by the states to Congress announcing their ratification of the Constitution provide additional evidence of the founding generation’s appreciation of the states’ and federal government’s respective roles as creator and creation. In nearly every one of these letters, the state legislature or ratifying convention delegation explicitly remind Congress that the consent of the states formed the federal government.

Delaware, for example, declared: “We the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the City of Philadelphia.”

New Jersey expressed a similar understanding of the parties to the constitutional compact: “Whereas a convention of Delegates from the following States, vizt. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, met at Philadelphia for the purpose of deliberating on, and forming a constitution for the United States of America.”

Georgia’s ratification notice letter also recorded the states’ role as creators of the new federal government: “Whereas the form of a Constitution for the Government of the United States of America, was, on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, agreed upon and reported to Congress by the Deputies of the said United States convened in Philadelphia.”

And on, and on, and on. The ratifying conventions called throughout the 13 states understood that the delegates sent to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 created a general government of limited power, retaining for themselves nearly the full panoply of powers they had exercised successfully for over a century.

If nullification is to be successfully deployed and defended, other states lawmakers must follow Dan Flynn’s example and remember that the Constitution is a creature of the states and that the federal government was given very few and very limited powers over objects of national importance.

As the Texas Balance of Powers Act makes clear, any act of Congress, the courts, or the president that exceeds that small scope is null, void, and of no legal effect. No exceptions. James Madison said it best in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

There are those commentators, however, who insist that the Civil War settled the question of sovereignty and supremacy once and for all. They are wrong.

The Civil War made one thing clear: The federal government believes (and the Confederacy was forced to concede) that might makes right. The Union army defeated the army of the Confederacy, therefore, so the thinking goes, secession is no longer a constitutional remedy available to states. Might makes right.

Only it doesn’t.

Think of it this way. Assume my neighbor and I disagree over the exact location of the boundary line between our properties. One day, while I’m out building a shed that my neighbor believes encroaches on his property, we start arguing, and the argument escalates to a full-fledged fist fight and I knock out my neighbor. Does that mean that the location of our mutual property line has been settled? Does the pummeling of my neighbor make my opinion of the location of that line the legal boundary?

Of course not.

Might, it seems, does not make right, neither in boundary disputes regarding land nor in similar conflicts over state sovereignty.

Nullification, as defined by Jefferson and Madison, and understood so well by Representative Flynn, is the most powerful weapon against the federal assault on state sovereignty and individual liberty. By applying the principles repeated in HB 98, states can simultaneously rebuild the walls of sovereignty once protected by the Constitution, in particular the Tenth Amendment, and drive the forces of federal consolidation back inside the constitutional cage meant to restrain them.

During this session of the Texas legislation, Representative Flynn will sponsor many important bills. “Today we filed bills that support the free exercise of faith, family, and freedom,” said Representative Flynn in a press release.

These bills included needed Second Amendment legislation, others to save taxpayer dollars with local water utility districts, assuring American law is practiced in American Courts, that district farmers and ranchers have the right to farm and ranch and sell their products without government interference, the free exercise of religion, and a law requiring students to take a semester on the U.S. Constitution prior to graduation from high school.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton.



Metal worker Lee Harrington described 20,000 CHINESE prisoner boxcars with shackles and modern guillotines, in the form of 40 foot railroad containers, coming into America via the west coast. They were ordered by the American government through a Senator who visited China and ordered these items. Workers unloading them became suspicious and began to investigate and discovered these horrors from China.  Such 40 foot cargo containers from China are now piled up along the West Coast, especially around Long Beach Naval Shipyard that the USA turned over to the Chinese.


When you were born, a certificate of birth was created with your ALL CAPS NAME, which was the creation of an “estate” by that ALL CAPS NAME. The word “estate” is deliberately left off the ALL CAPS NAME on the birth certificate to hide it. The ALL CAPS NAME is an unincorporated association – an estate. The ALL CAPS NAME is a decedent. The estate was created for your benefit and use, with you as the grantor (by placing your landmarks [footprints] on the certificate of birth), and you are still alive. Your parents are the creator of the Estate – they created you!

You do not own the estate. It’s the grantor’s estate. It’s not your office. The Grantor has liability. You do not want to own it, because ownership creates liability. However, you can control the estate and its assets.

The estate is in the nature of a trust, but is not a trust. The estate is non-corporate. The estate is subject to trust law and is affected by probate law. Probate law is the highest form of law. Scripture is trust and estate law, and trumps all other law i.e. – Treaty, Civil, Criminal, Law of Nations, Domestic, Probate, Equity – just made-up rules of the world game, for Atturns. to control everything. True law has to be simple and work equally for everyone = Equality. UCC is not contract law because there’s not full disclosure.

The Executor Office is, or appears to be, as high as or higher than the term of Sovereign, i.e. ruler, Pope, Queen, or any other illusion of Man’s superiority, as some understand it.

With this level of power, the Office is in a position to operate, in private or Public, on equal or higher rank than any other as long as it is done in honor and without causing or creating harm or problems for others. All are warned to Not Attempt to Utilize the Estate for Impure Intent – Evil or Selfish Intent Will Come Right Back into your Face FULL FORCE.

Once you occupy the Executor Office you cannot be considered or called chattel.

Why are we authorized to occupy the Executor Office? When you were born, you were sent the Executor Office (the Birth Certificate), and then only 3 people could get a copy of your Birth Certificate – you, mom and dad. Once you reached the age of maturity (21), you became the only one authorized.

Once you step up and occupy the Executor Office then there are no longer any trustee positions. When functioning in the Executor Office it cancels out all trustee functions. It overrides them all. However, the Executor Office can appoint trustees to accomplish certain limited tasks, but can never grant general power of attorney over Estate affairs.

And that’s the big secret -you are not a trustee no more which has lots of liability, as you state in your letter or verbally, you are Occupant of the Executor Office of A.B.C estate.

Once you send the Executor Letter: The issue is not how the Executor enforces her/his position –The issue is that THEY now cannot enforce their position.

Remember that where the Estate is concerned, there is no plaintiff or defendant offices, because the Estate does not subject itself to a court. They can’t come after the Estate because it is de jure. They are de facto.

If you find yourself in a ‘Court’-room, and inside the bar, make your statements such as those below and ask questions. Try not to engage in any other conversation or arguments. When in court (whether or not you already presented the Executor Letter), as soon as the case is called, announce the following (to the court) by addressing the opposing counsel:

“I am here in my proper capacity as the Occupant of the Executor Office of the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate”

If asked who appointed you Executor, just hand them the Birth Certificate.

Turn to the opposing counsel, and say:

“I demand your written authority to administrate the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate.”

-“What’s the one document you have in your possession that gives you the Authority or jurisdiction to control my life?”-

If the State Union BAR-barian member gives you any lip, or says he doesn’t have the written authority, tell him:

“I understand that the quickest way for you to get disbarred is to screw with the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate. Do you plan on screwing with the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate?”

If the Atturn. is smart, he will pack his briefcase and immediately exit – stage right!

If the Atturn. tries to give you any guff, tell him or her:

“Sir, as I am the one occupying the Executor Office of the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate, I must warn you that if you refuse to stand down, I will, in furtherance of my fiduciary duties, forthwith file a complaint with the Attorney General for tampering with the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate.”

You may also write out a bill for your time and hand it to the unlicensed State Union BAR member.

And, for good measure, you may want to appoint the Bar-barian as a Trustee of the Estate. (Lots of liability).

If the black-robed pirate ignores your position as Occupant of the Executor Office, ask:

“Excuse me, your honor; I am a bit confused about something here. Is this a Probate Court?”

You can then state:

“The Executor Office of the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate being the highest office represented here today, I demand that this case be immediately dismissed with prejudice and that all damages owing to the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate be paid forthwith.”

If the alleged judge still refuses to give in, appoint him as a Trustee of the Estate: (Lots of liability).

“As the Occupant of the Executor Office of the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate, I am directing you to dismiss this case and award damages to the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate as appropriate.”

If the damages have already been stated in the paperwork, then you can refer to them and demand that an order to that effect be issued by the court. If the damages have not been stated, and you know the amount, you can state them in court at this time, and demand an order. If you do not know the amount of the damages, then you can advise the court that you will prepare a statement of the charges and file them with the court within X days (you decide how long you need to prepare the charges).

If the pretend judge, or anyone else, objects to your statement that the Executor is the highest office present in the court, or continues to move forward acting as if they have the authority to administrate the Estate (after being advised that you are the Occupant), ask for the written authority to administrate the ALL CAPS NAME, Estate of all such persons. (Do they have evidence (from the Secretary of State), that the NAME is licensed to do business in this State?).

If the ‘judge’ wants to discuss the Estate, it must be done in the judge’s chambers, Not in the Public Administration Room, labeled Court.

If the judge threatens to lock you up, ask him, “Are you suggesting you are going to put the occupant of the Executor Office into custody? Is that what you’re saying?”

You operate on the private side, never Public -where all trustees are, and don’t forget you can appoint. It’s Not a request. Anyone can be appointed as trustee, and you tell them what to do, or you can sue them for Breach of Trust. That’s why judges go ape shit. It’s all about re-liability.

Fifth chapter of James:

Come now you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have stored up treasures for the last days. Indeed the wages that you kept back by fraud from the laborers who have harvested your fields are crying, and the cries of those who harvested have entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived in pleasure on the earth and have been wayward. You have nourished your hearts as in a day of slaughter.


The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker’s education and background.

The attorney asked the banker, “What is court exhibit A?”

The banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”

The attorney then asked, “Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?”

The banker responded by saying, “Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower.”

The attorney asked, “What do you believe the agreement is?”

The banker quickly responded, saying, ” We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check.”

The attorney asked, “Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?”

The banker responded by saying, “Sure it does.”

The attorney asked, `”According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?”

The banker responded by saying, “The lender loaned the borrower a $200,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money.”

The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. She asked, “Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?”

The banker said, “Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money.”

The attorney asked, “Does the $200,000 note have actual cash value of $200,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $200,000 cash in the ordinary course of business.”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?”

The banker said, “$200,000.”

The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $200,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?”

The banker said, “The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house.”

The attorney asked, “Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $200,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $200,000 plus interest?”

The banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $200,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned.”

The attorney asked, “If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?”

The banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions.”

The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $200,000 bank loan, the bank receives $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $200,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?”

The banker said, “I do not know the bookkeeping entries.”

The attorney said, “I am asking you if this is the policy.”

The banker responded, “I do not recall.”

The attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which is used to fund a $200,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?”

The banker said, ” I am not a lawyer.”

The attorney said, “Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the banker. She said, “Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorisation or permission for the bank to receive $200,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $200,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $200,000 plus interest?”

The banker said, “No.”

The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which the bank used to fund the $200,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $200,000 to the borrower?”

The banker said, “No.”

The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $200,000 to the bank and the bank returns $200,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $200,000 for $200,000.”

The banker replied, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of $200,000 swapped for $200,000, or did it call for a $200,000 loan?”

The banker said, “A $200,000 loan.”

The attorney asked, “Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans.”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?” The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked “Exhibit C.”

The banker said, “The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower.”

The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap or exchange of $200,000 for $200,000?”

The banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.”

The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $200,000 actual cash value for $200,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?”

The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The attorney asked, “If the bank’s deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank’s assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Is there any exception?”

The banker said, “Not that I know of.”

The attorney asked, “If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank’s books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?”

The banker thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?”

The banker said “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?”

The banker said, “Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way.”

The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?”

The banker said, “Nothing.”

The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?”

The banker said, “$200,000.”

The attorney said, “Is it true you received $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $200,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?”

The banker said, “I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan.”

The attorney asked, “Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower’s knowledge or written permission or authorisation?”

The banker said, “No.”

The attorney asked, “To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorisation for the bank to transfer $200,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

The banker said, “No.”

The attorney said, Does this allow the bank to use this $200,000 actual cash value to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $200,000 plus interest? “

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?”

The banker said, “No.” He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?”

The banker answered, “No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable.”

The attorney asked, “If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?”

The banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?”

The banker replied “Yes”.

The attorney said, “You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank’s property?

“No. No tax is paid.” said the crying banker.

The attorney asked, “When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money?”

The banker said, “Yes.”

   The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors’ money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $200,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”

The banker, In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, “All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this.”

   The attorney quickly responded, “Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorisation, and without the alleged borrower’s knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?”

The banker said, “But the borrower got a check and the house.”

   The attorney said, “Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?”

The banker, “It is true,” said the banker.

   The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank’s property, which they loan out as bank loans?”

The banker, showing a wince of regret that he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.”

   The attorney asked, “Was it the bank’s intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?”

The banker said, “Yes.” He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.

The attorney asked, “Do you believe that it was the borrower’s intent to fund his own bank loan check?”

The banker answered, “I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower’s mind.”

The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?”

The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, “If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.”

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?”

The banker said, “The bank returns the funds.”

The attorney asked, “Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?”

The banker said, “As a loan.”

The attorney asked, “How did the bank get the borrower’s money for free?”

The banker said, “That is how it works.”

   ” You don’t get a mathematically Perfected Economy™ from snake oil salesmen, you get division “

Source: Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (see Page 6, Paragraph 6 ).

   ” What they do when they *banks/money changers* make alleged loans, is to accept promissory notes or the “ alleged borrower’s ” promissory note in exchange for credits to the alleged borrower’s transaction account (s). Alleged loans/assets and deposits/liabilities both rise by the amount of the alleged loan. “


Picture 26Those are the facts whether you accept them or not. Any argument claiming the people consented to anything when being coerced to pay is irrational and just wrong. Because when you force people to pay, they are not agreeing to what you are doing, they are doing it to avoid further aggression. Pay or go to jail is not agreement.

Forcing people to give you money makes you a criminal. Yet, the Corporate Government criminals can call their crimes “taxation” –but that doesn’t change the act and make it any less criminal.

If your argument is: the people agreed to having a “Government” and a Constitution, then you need to support that argument with facts and sound, logical reasoning. Here, the facts and logic are all against any agreement. If the people are forced to pay, then they’re not agreeing to anything. And that doesn’t change because those profiting from the coercion (such as so-called judges) claim it is agreement. And if you think coercing people to give you money is agreement/consent, then you may be a psychopath as well as very misinformed.

Some of the arguments/opinions are:

  1. It’s not stealing when we force people to give us money. Why? Because it’s the Government. This is an appeal to authority.
  2. The laws apply because the laws say so. This is circular logic.
  3. The laws apply because if you don’t comply you’ll go to prison. This is     argumentum ad baculum, an appeal to the stick, or consequences.

Then there’s the logical fallacy known as the double-standard or special pleading as support. This is why as a “run of the mill anarchist” I describe belief in “Government” as a religion, because most see men and women called “Government” as very different from non-government people. The same standards that apply to non-government types like me, do not apply to people called “Government.” I’ve heard it hundreds of times. Those so-called “Government” are special; basic principals of right and wrong do not apply to them, they are above the principals that apply to the little people.

When you come right down to it, almost everything that Governments do would be crimes if committed by individuals.

The criminal Administrative courts of tyranny only provide judicial whores because they are so intent on collecting their royalty they will go ahead and proceed as an Article I Clerk (Commissioners, or maybe the custodian) masquerading as a Judge.

“Mental slavery is the worst form of slavery. It gives you the illusion of freedom, makes you trust, love and defend your oppressor, while making an enemy of those who are trying to free you or open your eyes.” -Eli

The enlarging rights of the individual have been disputed, refused, and fought for all through the ages.


635532252085838559-home-birth-coupleBELLINGHAM, Wash. — Three Bellingham children taken from their parents by CPS are now home, but they are still under STATE protection.

Erica May Carey and Cleave Rengo appeared in court on Friday. Within an hour after the judge’s ruling, they picked up their 1-year-old son and 8-week-old twins from the Bellingham CPS office.

“It’s amazing,” Carey cried. “There were times I was overwhelmed with doubt.”

The STATE’S case against the couple focused on domestic calls to police and their medical choices.

The judge called the couple’s home “chaotic” and “unstable.” He ORDERED both parents to seek counseling as part of the conditions of the children’s return.

Two of those concerns over medical choices for their children include the couple’s refusal to take their newborn twins to a hospital after paramedics had recommended a checkup immediately after the babies’ unassisted home birth. The couple also stopped using a recommended formula for the children to gain weight and instead went back to using breast milk.

“They projectile vomited that formula and it made them very sick. It’s not meant for babies, it’s meant for cows,” said Erica May Carey in court.

“If I had the choice, we would have chosen to keep them inside the house due to the sensitivity of the newborn baby to outside contaminants,” said Cleave Rengo in court.

The couple attributes many of their choices to their Christian beliefs, including their decision to have an unassisted home birth for their twins as well as using pro-biotics, coconut oil and other natural remedies to treat their 10-month-old son’s eczema instead of the recommended steroid cream.

The wife says she made several calls to Police about the couple’s arguments believing they could help find mediation.

“The STATE” has said it would not take children from a home because of a home birth.

It has been about a month and a half since the children have been living with their parents. The couple missed the one-year birthday of their oldest son. Now their Attorney says that son, who was diagnosed with eczema and is now in STATE custody, is also suffering from pneumonia.

While “The STATE Attorney’s office” confirmed (?) in court that CPS originally visited the couple’s home when they refused a paramedic’s recommendation to have a hospital check-up for the newborns, the judge said his decision to keep the kids under STATE shelter care had nothing to do with home birth or the use of natural remedies. His biggest concern is what he called an unstable, chaotic home environment.

The parents have been ‘Ordered’ to see counselors and follow other instructions to care for their kids.

“I definitely want to be a better parent,” Rengo said.

Source: Agenda 21 News


Mid-December                                                                                                               Two-thousand                                                                                                         Fourteen A.D.


           THIS IS A Liberty Preservation Declaration.                                                                          THIS IS A Public Domain Notice for the land, from the roots. Realize, we are in-peace to prevent the U.S. infringement on due process; and prohibit participation of U.S. acts which purport to authorize Alphabet Agencies and Para-Military trespass on State territory. When this type of unlimited power is commonly exercised, the people are in danger.

Why would anyone hire an accountant that cannot add?                                               Why would anyone hire a bartender that cannot mix a drink?                                         Why would anyone hire a chef that cannot cook?

Why in the hell are Officers hired who do not know the difference between an offence, a violation, a crime, and willfully, intentionally, purposely “breach the peace?”

Who profits? Follow the funds. It’s the evildoers, the wrongdoers, the Atturns and their Comrades, the road Nazis, thugs and gangsters.

Evil went out of the World at the end of the middle ages and madness came in. Questions about the relation-ship of law and psychiatry, agency and demonization, and the medicalizing of evil at the close of the millennium should be on everyone’s mind.

IF you cannot freely come and go as you please, then you do not live in a free society.

Farmers, like painters, actors, musicians, writers, dancers, etc., use their experience, imagination, and skill to produce something from nothing. The Supreme Court said this is PROTECTED. TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW -FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE:

Title 18 USC CHAPTER 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331. Definitions. As used in this chapter (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that – (A) involve violent acts; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a Government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a Government by assassination or kidnapping. The end results of all terrorist acts are to restrict the victim’s freedoms and put them out of business. That is what cities and counties do when they send out the dupes, the non-republic road pirates, all hyped-up to act on ‘Taking’ from the people, with no evidence for their irrelevant claims. And if They come to your door (trespass, impersonate an officer), and tell you that you cannot own over x amount of dogs, roosters, or junk cars (regulatory takings in violation of due process), and they issue a citation, it’s filing a false complaint, because 1) they are not a victim of public offense and 2) they cannot enforce city and county codes on PRIVATELY owned land, even if it is in the MIDDLE of the city, even though you are RENTING! THEN it also becomes interference contract. CITY and COUNTY Codes and Ordinances are ONLY for City and County-owned property! The punishment for terrorism is imprisonment for 25 years. If they come to my door, I will ask them where is the copy of the cancelled check, where they BOUGHT my property FIRST. Because my place is PRIVATE, and, just like Disneyland which is ALSO private, and which has its own rules and regulations, MY rule is, if the City or County want to LOOK at my property, they must PAY me first. That’s the law, and my admission fee to Them is $5 million.

UNTIL Humboldt –along with California’s other fifty-seven Counties, firmly planted on terra firma, returns to our promised Republic state of-mind, ~there can be no lawful, de jure, self-governing body politic = Governance. If you are not consistent, in more ways than one, to assert your sovereignty, then you by definition are not sovereign. Once we have our “inward” Standing de jure government back, it will be much easier, because it will shift the presumptions, until then we have to be pitbulls about it.

If you’re not living on the edge, you’re taking up too much space.

~ at the speed of heart,                                                                                     forrestqueen


Be it known to all Courts, Governments, and other parties, that I, Me, My self, XXXXX XXX, family of XXXXXXX, as Claimant, am a natural, freeborn Sovereign, without subjects. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated.

My authority for this statement is the same as it is for all free Sovereigns everywhere: the age-old, timeless, and universal respect for the intrinsic rights, property, liberties, and responsibilities of the Sovereign Individual.

I am not a “person” when such term is defined in statutes of the United States or statutes of the several States when such definition includes artificial entities. I do not consent to be treated as a Federal or State created entity, which is only capable of exercising certain benefits, privileges, or immunities as specifically granted by Federal or State Corporate GovernMentals.

I voluntarily choose to comply with the man-made rules, which serve to bring harmony to society, but no such rules, nor their uninformed enforcers, have any authority over me. I am not in any so-called ‘jurisdiction,’ for I am not of subject status.

Consistent with the eternal tradition of natural common law, unless I have harmed or violated someone or their property, I have committed no crime; and am therefore not subject to any penalty.

I act in accordance with the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

“The individual may stand upon his [her] constitutional rights as a citizen. He [She] is entitled to carry on his [her] private business in his [her] own way. His [her] power to contract is unlimited. He [she] owes no such duty [to submit his [her] books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he [she] receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of her life and property. His [her] rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him [her] by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his [her] rights are a refusal to incriminate himself [herself], and the immunity of himself [herself] and his [her] property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He [she] owes nothing to the public so long as he [she] does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905). [emphasis added].

Thus, be it known to all, I reserve my natural common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled and pretend “benefit” of any hidden or unrevealed ‘adhesion’ contracts or commercial agreements.

As such, the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to perform, for Persons of subject status, are inapplicable to My self; and are null and void. If I have participated in any of the supposed “benefits” associated with these hidden contracts, I have done so under duress, for lack of any other practical alternative. I may have received such “benefits” but I have not accepted them in a manner that binds me to anything.

Any such participation does not constitute “acceptance” in contract law, because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid “offer,” and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no “meeting of the minds,” and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed “contract” is therefore void; ab initio.

From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily whereby I have waived any of my natural common law rights, and, as such, Take Notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio my signature on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any Federal or State Government, authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me.

This position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):

“Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.”

Examples of compelled and pretend “benefits” are:

  1. The use of Federal Reserve Notes to discharge my debts. I have used these only because in America there is no other widely recognized exchange for purchases.
  2. My use of a bank account -is due to the absence of a bank not associated with the Federal Reserve System. In general, people have been prevented from issuing their own-represented currency, and such prevention is in violation of the Constitution for the united States of America. Were there an alternative, I would be happy to use it.
  3. The use of a Social Security number. The number normally assigned to persons of subject status, I use exceptionally, under duress, only because of the inconvenience of operating without one, as it is requested by many Corporate Government agencies and businesses. Let it be known that I use the Social Security number assigned to me for information only.
  4. As a free Sovereign, there is no legal or lawful requirement for me to have a State-owned Driver’s license for traveling. Technically, the unrevealed Legal purpose of a Driver’s license is commercial in nature. Since I don’t carry passengers for hire, there is no law requiring me to have a license to travel for my own pleasure and that of my family and friends.
  5. Plates on my transportation carriage(s). Technically, my ‘car’ does not fit the legal definition of a “motor vehicle,” which is used for commercial purposes. I do not have State issued plates on any of my transportation.
  6. Past Tax Returns filed. Any tax returns I may have filed in the past, were filed due to the dishonest atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the I.R.S. (Imaginary Revenue Scam) and the local Assessors’ office; NOT because there is any law requiring me to do so. Once I discovered that the IRS and other Tax agencies have been misinforming the public, I have felt it is my responsible duty to society to terminate my voluntary participation. Because such returns were filed under Threat, Duress, and Coercion (TDC), and no two-way contract was ever signed with full disclosure, there is nothing in any past filing of IRS returns or payments that created any valid contract. Therefore, no lawful obligation on my part was ever created.
  7. Birth Certificate. The fact that a birth certificate was granted to me by a local hospital or Government agency when I entered this World, is irrelevant to my Sovereignty. No status, high or low, can be assigned to someone through a piece of paper, without the recipient’s full knowledge and consent. Therefore, such a piece of paper provides date and place information only. It indicates nothing about ‘Court’ jurisdiction, nothing about property ownership, nothing about rights, and nothing about subject status. The only documents that can have any legal or lawful meaning, as it concerns my status in society, are those that I have signed as an adult, with full knowledge and consent, free from misrepresentation or coercion of any kind.
  8. Marriage License. The acquisition of a marriage license is now being revealed as being necessary only for slaves. The act of a Sovereign, such as myself, obtaining such a license, through social custom and ignorance of law, has no effect in changing my status. This is because any such change in status, if any may be supposed to occur, could happen only through a hidden and unrevealed contract or statute. Since no hidden, unrevealed, and undisclosed information, if it exists, can be lawfully held to be binding; it is null and void.
  9. Public School Indoctrination. The attendance of my daughters and/or son in Government-supported “Public” schools or Government-controlled “private” schools does not create any tax obligation for me, nor any other lawful obligation, because I never signed a contract agreeing to such obligation for the supposed “privilege” of Public school attendance.  When my offspring have attended Government supported “Public” or controlled “private” schools, such was done under duress and not out of free will. Be it known that I regard “compulsory State education” as a violation of the Thirteenth Article in the Bill of Rights:

        “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to Their jurisdiction.”

  1. Declaration of Citizen-ship. Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered “yes” to the question, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” – cannot be used to compromise my status as a Sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is because without full written disclosure of the definition and consequences of such supposed “citizenship,” provided in a document bearing my signature given freely without misrepresentation or coercion; there can be no lawfully binding contract.
    I am not a “United States” Citizen, subject to Federal-made Rules. The United States is an entity created by the Constitution with delegated authority as described on the following pages of this Declaration. I am not a “resident of,” an “inhabitant of,” a “franchise of,” a “subject of,” a “ward of,” the “property of,” the “chattel of,” or “subject to the jurisdiction of” any Corporate Federal Government, Corporate State Government, Corporate County Government, Corporate City Government, or Corporate Municipal body politic. I am not subject to any legislation, department, or agency created by such authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority therefrom. Further, I am not a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article IV Courts of the several States, or Article I Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of such Courts -deriving their Opinions from said authorities. Take Notice that I hereby revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio any such instrument or any presumed election made by any of the several States or the United States Government or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntary elected to be treated as a United States Citizen, subject to its jurisdiction or a ‘resident’ of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of any of the several States or of the United States as defined in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
  1. Past voter registration. Since no obligation to perform in any manner was ever revealed in print, as part of the requirements for the supposed “privilege” to vote for Government officials, any such registration on my part cannot be lawful evidence of any obligation to perform. Likewise, I have granted NO jurisdiction over me, to any political office. It is my inherent right to vote on elections or issues that I feel affect all of society; NOT because I need anyone to rule over me. On the contrary – I have used the voting process only to instruct my public servants what an American national Sovereign would like done.
  2. Use of a Zip Code and/or My use of a two-letter State Code -in my “address,” which is secretly codified to indicate a United States “Federal Zone,” has no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status. Simply by receiving or sending “mail” through a quasi-federal messenger service, the postal service, at a location indicated with a two-letter State Code and Zip Code, cannot place me under Federal authority or obligation. I use these Codes only for the purpose of information and making it easier for the U.S. Postal Service to deliver my mail.
  3. Use of semantics. Some Persons, masquerading as “Government” employees are immature with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people. Just because they alter definitions of words in their Legal books to their supposed advantage, doesn’t mean I accept those definitions. The fact that They define the words “person,” “address,” “mail,” “resident,” “motor vehicle,” “driving,” “passenger,” “employee,” “income,” and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.

Because the ‘Courts’ have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all ‘Courts’ and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in the Legal books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any obligation to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the meaning in the common dictionary differs from the meaning in the Legal, aka Law dictionaries; it is the meaning in the common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.

My use of such alleged “benefits” is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my common law rights. I have waived none of my rights and liberties by my use thereof. My use of compelled “benefits” may be temporary until better alternatives become available and widely recognized.


It is further relevant to this DECLARATION that any violation of my Rights, Liberties, or Property by the U.S. Federal Government, or any agent thereof, would be illegal and unlawful, clearly outside the limited boundaries of Federal jurisdiction. My understanding is that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution defines the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Government:

“The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And – To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…” [emphasis added]

And Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

“The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

The definition of the “United States” being used here, then, is limited to its territories:

1) The District of Columbia             5) American Samoa

2) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico   6) Northern Mariana Islands

3) U.S. Virgin Islands                       7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

4) Guam                                         8) Military bases w/in the several States

9) Fed. Agencies w/in the several States

It does not include the several States themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites:

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a Government of each of the several States. Each one of these Governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a Citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these Governments will be different from those he has under the other.” Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

“THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE.” [emphasis added] Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287.

This is further confirmed by the following from an I. R. S Code:

Federal jurisdiction “includes” the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.” – Internal Revenue Code Section 312(e). [emphasis added]

In Legal terminology, the word “includes” means “is limited to.”

When referring to this “District” United States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term “WITHIN” the United States. When referring to the several States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term “WITHOUT” the United States.

Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Court cases prove that Federal authority is limited to the few Federal territory areas above indicated. For example, in two Supreme Court cases, it was decided:

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government,” Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215.

“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,” Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 221, 223, 228, 229.

Likewise, Title 18 of the United States Code at §7 specifies that the “territorial jurisdiction” of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the several States.

Therefore, in addition to the fact that no unrevealed Federal contract can obligate me to perform in any manner without my fully informed and un-coerced consent, likewise, no Federal statutes or regulations apply to me or have any jurisdiction over me. I hereby affirm that I do not ‘reside’ or work in any Federal territory of the “District” United States, and that therefore no U.S. Federal Government dead-man’s statutes or regulations have any authority over me.


All United States and State Government officials are hereby put on Notice that I expect them to have recorded valid Oaths of Office in accordance with the Constitution, Article VI:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution…”

I understand that by their Oaths of Office all Federal and State Government officials are contractually bound by the Constitution for the United States of America as formulated by its framers, and not as “interpreted,” subverted, or corrupted by any Courts and/or State Union BAR members that owe their allegiance to a foreign jurisdiction.

According to the Ninth Article in the Bill of Rights:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And the Tenth Article in the Bill of Rights:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Thus, my knowledge of these Articles in the Bill of Rights, that the expressing of the people’s power delegated to all U.S. Federal and State Government officials, are limited to those specifically granted by the Constitution for the United States of America.

I further overstand that any codes, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and procedures contrary to the Constitution, as written by its framers, are null and void, as expressed in the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by Legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.” This is succinctly stated as follows:

‘The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in Legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.’

‘Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…’

‘A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.’

‘No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.’ [emphasis added]

And as expressed once again in the Constitution, Article VI:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

All U.S. and State Government officials are therefore hereby put on NOTICE that any violations of their contractual obligations to act in accordance with their Constitution, may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law, as well as the application of all available Legal remedies to recover damages suffered by any parties damaged by any actions of Federal and State Government officials in violation of the law of the land.


Furthermore, I hereby revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio; all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to the Social Security number assigned to me, as it pertains to my birth certificate, marriage or business license, or any other licenses or certificates issued by any and all Government or quasi-governmental entities, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my Sovereignty and/or property.

I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney; in fact or otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge; as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute lawful owner and possess Legal allodial title and lawful title to any and all such property.

Take Notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney; in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, but not limited to; any and all ‘color of law’ Public Corporate Governmental entities, on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.

I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age and am competent in making this Declaration. I hereby affix my own signature to all that this Declaration claims in this entire document, with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and my specific common law rights and liberties, not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.

The use of a Notary Public does NOT grant any authority to anyone.


Date: ____________________           _____________________________________

XXXXX XXX: XXXXXXX, Pro solido                   Proceeding Sui juris


Specifically what is wrong with these Establishment Top Policy-Makers? What force drives them to be so incredibly Evil and to work endlessly to destroy the Republic for the united States of America, tyrannize and terrorize We The People and then mass-murder us?

The average American has had about enough of this Agenda 21’s tyranny and are close to going ballistic on many fronts including military like the Founding Fathers did and recommended for any such a situation that has arisen inside America, like DHS and FEMA – -an Enemy Occupation Force within our gates.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers (CSPOAssn) were on the scene in Ferguson, Missouri. They provided protection for businesses that were about to be set on fire. Some of the fires were witnessed as being started by the invading Para-Military. We have U.S. INC. domestic enemies trespassing on state territory, when 50 of the Policy Police Practicing their Protocol Procedures threatened to arrest the Sheriffs & Peace Officers who came to help them! Nothing makes sense. No. Nothing.

The puppet media focuses only on the Chief of Police position, which is but slightly above a WalMart rent-a-cop. Same as here in Eureka when the badged thugs murder one of us. It’s ALL about THE Police Chief. And IF the District A is going to file charges against the murdering Po-lice.

I’m quite sure that the Sheriff position, an elected position, the highest elected official in the county, who has been granted the people’s-delegated authority to express our power to Stand up to enemies –both foreign and domestic- is willingly part of the consolidation for all American Peace Officers and Alphabet agencies into Homeland Security – perversions practiced during regular office hours.

In Missouri there’s a St. Louis ‘County’ Police Chief. Do we have a Humboldt ‘County’ Chief of Police that we don’t know about? This is like finding out that Fortuna has two Police Chiefs. One of the City of Fortuna –William Dobberstein, and the COPS USA Dept. “Police Chief” – Kris Kitna.

Disband the Police Departments. These Officers need to be Deputies who take their orders from an elected Constitutional County Sheriff. Not some corporate employee sock puppet, limited hangout traitor, labeled City Manager.

Dissolve the State Union BAR member’s club. The traitors that are trespassing on American soil with their unconstitutional foreign dead man’s Statutes, and masquerading as ‘Judges’ in Their kangaroo-courts.

“The Politician attempts to remedy the evil by increasing the very thing that caused the evil in the first place . . . Legal plunder.” Frederick Bastiat.

This is the struggle of the ages Might versus Right. It is the final struggle between the Evil Aristocratic “Bloodline” (aka the Illuminati) versus We the People, that is the Populism Powered Masses versus the most Evil entities that ever existed on Planet Earth, that have acted as criminal parasites, mass-murders and asset-strippers upon the Human Race.