This site’s informational fact-based content presents how one can move one’s secured God-endowed rights when it is necessary to access natural-law-based justice from the present court system in the State of Michigan body-corporate governmental association, which is likely very similar to the courts in other such States. Our “History Section B” found on the sidebar of this site presents the difference between the State of Michigan and Michigan (the State in the Union), both established as a public Trust but that function under a different form of law. People in the States of the Union interact together under the Public Law, meaning the unwritten natural law of conscience. All State bodies corporate are franchises of the commerce-based federal Trust that functions under the laws of commerce that we term Private Law, meaning written rules of conduct established by a body of persons to which all people who associate in that Trust are subject. Our focus is on state-level courts, but the content applies to federal-level courts too. “Remedeemer” (pronounced: rem e deem' er) is the combination of “rem”, a legal term that means a court action about or against 'the thing' within the commerce-based Trust, and “redeemer” as one who lawfully establishes one's own right to be free from subjugation to a court process that was begun from someone's presumption that one acts via a legal persona pertaining to the thing. As the host of this site, I especially welcome you Readers who are beginning to explore how to protect your God-endowed rights now that you’re realizing what you thought were your fundamental rights are instead being treated as mere social privileges by governors and per rulings made by court officers. All Readers are encouraged to view the new file found on the sidebar, titled: Timeline of the two governmental Trust associations. It provides the date-specific historic events that established our original and still-functioning governmental Trust (beginning with the 1776 Declaration of Independence) merged with our exposure of the events that gave rise to our form of government and what has caused foreign persons and entities since then to establish the separate commerce-based federal Trust structure. Along with others, the host of this website operates Michigan's updated original (c.1835) republican form of civilian government, based from New Buffalo township, Michigan. That informational website is ministryofnewbuffalotownship.org

Monday, October 31, 2022

Congressman’s Bill would end central bankers’ use of human labor to back their usurious and manipulated currency

Congressman Alex Mooney (R-WV) has introduced H.R. 9157 “To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold, and for other purposes”.

Its 5-page content can be read here https://www.moneymetals.com/uploads/content/HR-9157-Gold-Standard-Restoration-Act----Alex-Mooney.pdf

As our regular Readers know, the bankers’ currency has been backed by nothing but the labor of those American people who place trust in it by pledging their energy to the use of the bankers and controlled politicians when people endorse the back of a banking instrument, such as a paycheck. That act forms the agreement to back the face-value of the instrument.

While the American people have had the ability to redeem Federal Reserve Notes for our silver-backed national money of exchange–-United States Notes / “lawful money” per Section 16 of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act–-the purchasing power of lawful money has been pegged to the value of the bankers’ currency. Mr. Mooney’s Bill exposes that “The Federal Reserve note has lost 30 percent of its purchasing power since 2000, and 97 percent since 1913”. The sellers of goods and services have not known the difference between FRNs and United States Notes (or even that U.S. Notes exist). But more importantly, people and business owners generally have not known the difference in societal status between those of us who demand to handle only our national money in order to remain free from having presence in the bankers’ Democracy, and those people who energize FRNs and have little more than slave status in that foreigner-controlled governmental association.

Congressman Mooney’s Bill would begin the restoration of gold as the backing of the Federal Reserve note dollar, which would also cause the Congress to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures mandated at Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Stated goals of the Bill are: “The gold standard puts control of the money supply with the market instead of the Federal Reserve”, and “Federal Reserve banks shall make Federal Reserve Notes redeemable for and exchangeable with gold at a fixed price, with the U.S. Treasury and its gold reserves backstopping Federal Reserve Banks as guarantor”.

For obvious reasons, the Federal Reserve’s officers and most of the controlled media will try to suppress awareness of Mr. Mooney’s effort. But there is one media source who has promoted it. Here’s the link to FOX BUSINESS commentator Kennedy’s Watch who speaks the truth about the Fed’s manipulation of the value of the dollar and then interviews Congressman Mooney:


Tuesday, February 15, 2022

“Democracy is on fire” says the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates, who vow to extinguish the Fire: the election integrity rules being passed by uppity state Legislatures


This post provides our Readers –- whether associated as the Michigan government-body or as participants in the State of Michigan body corporate –- confirmation of our assertion (made in previous posts here) that the American Bar Association is a military body established by international self-appointed Elitists who desire to govern the American people as their chattel property. This article https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ABA-vows-to-fight-challenges-to-free-and-fair-elections published February 14, presents the ABA House of Delegates’ admission of the fact that its members are duty-bound to fight to protect the ability for state election officials to continue utilizing election fraud to keep the Elitists’ chosen bureaucrats in office. The House of Delegates have approved their Resolution 800 as the means to fight to protect their democratic process [read that as: the ruling over the many by a few chosen marxists]. 

Bar members know that people who choose to associate in a State within the Federal Reserve System, such as the State of Michigan (that sells commerce-based governing services) do so by contracting with the Executive division; a body corporate operates per a top-down governing structure. While the common people elect persons to govern them, the Legislature is only supposed to create laws that control the internal movement of human energy (energy of people as worker-bees) for the benefit of the Elitists. In every Legislature there are many Bar members, who write the laws for that purpose. So the laws that pertain to elections being proposed by legislators who are either not Bar members or who are members not adhering to the Bar’s function can challenge the top-down power structure, and even strip the Executive division [read that as: that represents the Elitists] of its control over human-energy. 

Legislatures have begun passing election integrity laws that empower the people to prevent election fraud from occurring. This article lists the specific types of laws. The ABA's Resolution 800 provides the policy platform per which ABA members can lobby legislatures to prevent them from undermining the power of the Elitists to be able to cast votes for the voters by whatever means is necessary to ensure that the right bureaucrats get elected.

This article presents that the Bar member who introduced Resolution 800, Lucy Thomson, sounded the internal fire alarm by telling the ABA’s House of Delegates that the new laws interfere with the administration of elections [read that as: administered by agents of the Elitists] by “fundamentally altering how elections are conducted” [by the Elitists] and that ensuring “free” elections [read the definition of 'free' as: the unrestrained use of election fraud] has been an issue important to the ABA for 30 years. Thirty years! One wonders, has election fraud been occurring for that long?

Sunday, December 12, 2021

Our Response to valuable Comments and Inquiries received from our Readers

We thank our Readers for engaging with the content of this site and then sending us emails seeking additional interaction with us. The best way we can respond is in the following format, which everyone may find beneficial. 

Reader Comment one: The more one understands, the simpler it gets, but getting to that level of understanding is overwhelming for the vast majority of people. 

Our Response to Comment one: Comprehending the root matter is actually simple, even if it's somewhat shocking to realize. But the American people are more able to accept and assimilate that knowledge than you may realize. That’s because we’re in a spiritual war, not just a political one. Maturing spiritually is not a communal undertaking, since everyone grows at his or her own pace. People who are now awake and acting as Protesters within the State of Michigan for instance (the socialist form of Trust association) grasp that a serious governmental problem exists, so they just need to be informed that the root of the problem is the fact that two separate governmental associations / Trusts exist. Operating our republican form of government has been our responsibility since 1776. The relatively small percentage of us who are the currently-functioning Michigan government (functioning at all times in our private capacity, each of us being equal and abiding in Divine Law that forms the Public Law) are providing the population at large a welcoming society here into which to return and enjoy the benefit of side-by-side self-government. 

Reader Comment two: l understand that there needs to be made clear the distinction between Power and Authority. What I’m concerned with is that the balance between them is rapidly changing to the point of irrelevance of authority. For example, per the mandate of wearing masks and forced vaccinations, etc. there is a massive shift toward the Power side. We have the Nuremberg codes/laws, but they ignore them. I know there are a lot of issues that belong under one Trust or the other, but I see a 3rd umbrella on the scene, the “Power Trust.”

Our Response to Comment two: There is no “Power Trust”, because the persons who established the Private Law Trust (State of Michigan, for instance) can only entice men and women to choose to abandon their own power and duty to be the Michigan government and choose instead to place trust in those other persons’ governing power. To place trust is to use one’s authority to grant reliance on others to move for one about one’s interests. “Authority” is defined by the root word “author”. We are each an immortal soul/spirit having physical experiences to gradually become Godlike, and while we’re in this realm we are the author who uses our inherent liberty of conscience to choose how we direct our energy per which we move all of our interests. “Power” is subject to the preexistence of a Right. A right is derived from a Duty. Humans are commanded by the Creator to not steal, for instance, as the Public Law duty from which we each gain the right to use appropriate power against someone who is stealing what belongs to us. Within the Private Law Trust, people acting from the status of voter/citizen/transactor have provided the office-holders with power to govern every aspect of their life, so there is no office-holder disregard of the peoples’ authority. Pertaining to the Nuremberg Code, since COVID-related policies only apply to participants in the Private Law Trust, officers therein are performing a duty that they or their advisors determine is their empowered right to do (which can frequently change). The 1963 Michigan Constitution, the written contract pertaining to the conduct of all participants within the State of Michigan, describes the power given to each public Office. That Constitution clearly defines the socialist mission of the Private Law Trust per its Article I Section 1: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their [the participants'] equal benefit, security and protection.” Contrast that with the 1835 Michigan Constitution’s God-centered mission statement pertaining to each one of the people: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted [by the people themselves] for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.”. 

Reader Inquiry one: Can you expand on the “pass through” use of the all-capitalized name of a man or woman that you identify as being a Cestui Que Vie Trust?

Our Response to Inquiry one: The pass-through use of that Trust construction is a critically important right possessed by men and women who are the government of a State in the Union, such as Michigan, in relation to the function of office-holders in the welfare-based Private Law Trust association such as the State of Michigan that operates in accordance with the international law of commerce. The Cestui Que Vie Trust is an individual Trust created for a participant within the Private Law Trust association; as is explained in our “History Section B” accessed from the sidebar of this site, an individualized Trust is established by the secular birth registration of a baby for that grownup human’s use of it to transact his interests (moved per his energy in the form of labor or money) within the Federal Reserve System, the federal-level Trust wherein the State of Michigan exists as a franchise. The French word cestui means "he or she”, que means “who”, and vie pertains to “life, or existence”. So the phrase means he or she for whose benefit a Trust is created, or in others words, a beneficiary.

The origin of this welfare form of Trust is the British 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act, which can be found online. It benefited persons who were presumed lost at sea or dead from the great London fire of 1665. The Act established that the Monarch would hold the title to all of such missing person’s property rights pertaining to the person’s estate and would operate the estate for him. If the person who was presumed dead, but who actually existed as living, made the proof of his living ability to operate his own estate known to a high-level governing authority, the person reacquired the title to all of his prior property rights. The same provisions exist within the Federal Reserve System established here in 1935.

All that the office-holders in the Private Law Trust do is provide the Benefit of governing services to the participants, because the participants are without ownership of life. In other words, a participant in that Trust is not self-governing his private and social interests (his earthly estate). The office-holders utilize the internal individualized Cestui Que Vie Trust named to identify the participant as a vessel that holds all of the participant’s energy, even though the office-holder may be concerned with only a particular amount of energy therein concerning the participant’s right or a duty to do something or cease doing something. The vessel is spelled in all upper-case letters because it’s a thing that links with the vessel/account pertaining to the energy of another participant or to all of the participants in the Private Law Trust designated for instance as STATE OF MICHIGAN or PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN (this applies when the dignity of all of the participants is offended by one participant’s conduct). The legislators in the State of Michigan, termed “law makers”, create the governing policies as the Benefit to be provided via the individualized Trust accounts.

Those of us people who comprise the government of Michigan have not pledged any energy into the Cestui Que Vie Trust (CQVT) vessel established for people who transact their energy in the State of Michigan. We have given notice of our ownership of life – our complete ownership of all of our energy – and our self-governing political status. So, when it’s necessary for us to communicate with officers of the State of Michigan or the federal-level of that commerce-based Trust about some situation, they must recognize that we have the established right to do so per “special visitation” with them to provide them truth, which is how we comply with our Public Law duty to keep the Peace. The means per which we visit with them is by making temporary pass-through use of the individual CQVT that internally exists in their Trust (but does not exist in our Public Law Trust) for linking our rights and duties secured by the Public Law with their duty of office secured under their Private Law that they energize from within the CQVT vessel/account that pertains to their function (such as the HONORABLE JOHN J. JONES). In other words, the only purpose of our use of an empty CQVT vessel that otherwise does not pertain to us is for charitably allowing “like” things to connect as the conduit for the back-and-forth communications.

A judicial officer in the State of Michigan – who is tasked to administrate individual CQVT accounts pertaining to a case that houses an “action” (meaning, a transaction) usually begun by a participant against another participant – must recognize the Public Law rights and duties of those of us people who provide fact-based documented notice that we associate as the government of Michigan and are not participants in the State of Michigan societal Trust. In that circumstance, the assigned judicial officer must act to nullify an internal case and the underlying action brought by someone unless the claimant provided the documented evidence that invoked a court’s Private Law jurisdiction over us as a component of the complaint. If the judicial officer otherwise proclaims we are subject to Private Law, the officer acts outside the scope of his/her governmental function and can be held personally liable for the harm done to our interests (his/her unauthorized use of our energy), and held officially liable for the maladministration of the CQVT that is just the conduit for our ability to express our right to obtain justice under the Public Law. If we must visit a court per our special visitation right as a plaintiff who presents that an individual who is subject to Private Law (as well as to the Public Law of Peace) has harmed our interests, the judicial officer must utilize the Private Law in a manner that does not violate our Public Law rights; to clarify, the officer does not advocate for us, since we are responsible for presenting the facts ourselves.

Reader Inquiry two: Does a sheriff ‘wear two hats’ in order to uphold the rule of law pertaining to the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution?

Our Response to Inquiry two: No, a sheriff acts at all times with ‘one hat’ on. That officer’s power exists only under the rule of Private Law. The Bill of Rights pertains to the Public Law and the self-governing people who form the government in the several States in the Union. Those ten inclusive Amendments enumerate the negative rights of federal-level officers, so they do not exceed their delegated powers. Some of the Bill of Rights, such as “due process” for instance (Amendment V), pertain to people who are participants in the Private Law Trust (such as the State of Michigan), but the implementation is governed by the welfare-based design of that Trust.

Once a sheriff is presented with the fact that a man or woman associates as the government of a State in the Union, the sheriff must utilize the Private Law duty to refrain from subjecting that man or woman to the wrong set of rights and duties, as the sheriff’s means of upholding the integrity of Private Law and obeying the Public Law that maintains Peace. If a sheriff observes, or is called to protect someone who is not subject to Private Law, a violation of that one’s Public Law rights being committed by a prosecutor or even a judicial officer within the Private Law Trust, the sheriff has the duty to intervene in aid of the distressed man or woman and make an arrest (which means stop the continuation) of that official’s misconduct. If the sheriff observes any man or woman violating the Public Law, then the offender’s conduct becomes subject to being controlled under Private Law if the harmed party is protected by the Private Law, or if the Peace of the public at large is endangered.

All officers of the Private Law Trust – and especially sheriffs, since those officers can act to prevent harm being done to people – must comprehend that since the Public Law is current law and the Private Law is also current law, then the only way that Private Law does not violate the Public Law is the recognition of the right possessed by each of the American people to consent to associate within one or the other governmental Trusts.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Acquiring public-law based justice from the private-law based court system

In this post we focus on how we require the proof of authority that officers functioning within the private-law / statute-based courts of the STATE OF MICHIGAN / State of Michigan must have in order to rely on their claim to govern the rights and obligations of us sovereign people (those of us who are eligible and choose to operate the actual government of Michigan). We also focus on how we can remain protected by public law if we must acquire justice from such officers.

Public law overstands private law in all instances, because, in accordance with the 1776 Declaration of Independence, we Americans agree that we each possess God-endowed free will, and that we institute a form of government on the basis of our consent to be bound therein. Public law, also called natural law or moral law or the Laws of Nature’s God (as stated in the Decl. of Independence), originates from our Creator-imbued conscience – everyone’s unwritten knowing of right and wrong conduct – or in written form, the Ten Commandments as commonly accepted prohibitions that when observed ensure peaceful societal life.

Per the five-part first post on this site, and our government's structural History and at-a-glance graphic chart provided from the sidebar of this site, we’ve presented that Michigan is a public government, wherein the Public Law is enforced. And in contrast, the “STATE OF MICHIGAN” is a municipal corporation incorporated in the international commerce-law based Federal Reserve System (as is the STATE Of INDIANA, STATE OF FLORIDA, etc), and “the State of Michigan” is the conjunctive territorial component incorporated into the Federal Reserve System as the extension of the District of Columbia wherein that globalist System (being a Trust) exists. The sub-units of the latter two forms of society, meaning City, Township, and County, having corporate structure is proved, for example, per the 1963 CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN, Section 1: “Each organized county shall be a body corporate with powers and immunities provided by law”.

We have presented that to be subject to the private law of the STATE OF MICHIGAN, or a COUNTY, one must have “presence” and / or “domicile” therein at the time that an accusation against one is initiated by the service of it. Those are the legal terms that identify an individual’s contractual connection with that form of society. This fact is proved per the Michigan Court Rule that concerns how the courts acquire authority to render a judgment over a “defendant” – meaning one who has rights and obligations to defend therein. It is Court Rule 2.105 (J) (1) and (2), specifically pertaining to service of process (the claim) to a defendant. That Rule incorporates Michigan Complied Law/MCL 600.701, which states that the court’s jurisdiction [meaning, law-based authority] over a defendant requires the accused person to have had: “(1) Presence in the state at the time when process is served. (2) Domicile in the state at the time when process is served.” Of course “the state” within that court rule means STATE OF MICHIGAN / State of Michigan, and does not mean Michigan. The term “presence” does not merely mean one’s physical existence. It means also one’s transacting existence. The legislature of the State of Michigan establishes the rules of conduct, termed statutes, that police transacting individuals. Statutes are private laws that form corporate policy.

The Federal Reserve System’s court officers administrate the societal rights and obligations – being the Trust benefits – of persons who are subject to its proceedings. Officers do that by administering the individual trust vessel / account that central bankers established for singular people to be able to pledge their energy to the use of bankers and the bankers’ globalist controllers. That’s why all court related documents show the defendant’s and plaintiff’s name spelled in the all-capitalized style of the related trust account. The transacting party moves as the representative of his own energy placed in that account pertaining to the particular matter that concerns a portion of his energy; this is what’s called self-representation. Officers of the court simply act to transfer pledged human-energy between those trust accounts, according to which party prevails in his claim. The proceedings can also be understood as administrative law / trust-law proceedings. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN (meaning all of the people who pledge energy to central bankers) can be the plaintiff, and their representative is the elected prosecutor within the COUNTY where an alleged action took place involving the defendant. The means per which central bankers, actually per which attorneys acting for them, utilize the individual trust vessels established for people to be able to transact with them is detailed on page 8 of the “History Section B” link accessed from the sidebar of this site.

Importantly, we have also presented that in the world of international commerce – where the Federal Reserve System operates – a contract can be presumed to exist, especially a contract that benefits the central bankers’ agenda. Officers acting for or in the court system are taught, or are allowed to believe, that all people transact with them. But Court Rule 2.105 (J) clearly defines that a transacting relationship is established only from domicile or presence within a State of the Federal Reserve System. If neither condition exists, then such officer lacks authority to act on someone’s exercise of his or her social rights and obligations.

The transacting relationship of the parties is caused by the American people themselves. They create a Lien to exist on their energy (due to the consented-to existence of domicile or presence). The Lien people create is performance-based, so a guilty party must do something or refrain from doing something or must express performance in the medium of an awarded amount of money that circulates within the Federal Reserve System. The Lien is the underlying thing that the legal term “rem” refers to; “rem” means the action (the particular conflict) against the thing concerning real or personal property. We’ve introduced the term “rem” in the introduction of this website. The settlement of the conflict is termed the remedy. An action can also be brought "in personam", meaning it is about the underlying lien but is directed to a specific person. When the parties to an action that has been presumed to be valid first appear in court, the judge confirms that the parties act as trustees transacting their energy via the corresponding individual trust accounts. The confirmation proceeding is what bonds / secures (meaning, insures) the judicial relief – judgments and ORDER instruments – that will result. The relief is a benefit obtained from a court, being the means with which a right is enforced or a penalty is imposed. The judicial officer is tasked with providing the parties with their law-based benefit.

So, in the simplest terms, if the accused is not a transacting party within the Federal Reserve System, then no commerce-law based action can be approved by a prosecutor making a claim for THE PEOPLE (or, moved by an individual claimant himself or via his attorney). The prosecutor lacks the authority to do so. Authority cannot be confused with power. The prosecutor’s power to move an action comes from being an elected officer. The prosecutor is insured to move an action, but only singular people can give him authority over his or her social rights and obligations. People are subject only to the law under which each has freely consented to be bound.

The notice to a potential party about the initiation of an action within the commerce-law jurisdiction, whether being a Summons to appear or in the form of a law-enforcement officer’s charging document that a prosecutor receives for approving the arrest of the accused, shows the individual trust accounts (spelled in all capital letters) that are presumed to contain the pledged energy of the involved parties. It also shows the commerce-law jurisdiction street address as the place where service can occur to the accused, and the Date of Birth of the party(ies), which is the date established as the beginning of the social rights and obligations that people move within the Federal Reserve System (see page 8 of the “History Section B” linked on the sidebar of this site). If a Summons initiates the notice of a claim, the Clerk of the Court is the officer who issues the Summons document. That clerk is the temporary custodian of the individual trust vessels / accounts when an action is begun by the plaintiff, whoever the plaintiff is; the trust accounts are controlled at the federal level. The clerk assigns a number to a case established to house the action/conflict, and assigns a judge to dispose of the case. Published court rules govern the proceedings. During the proceedings, the judge acts as the ongoing administrator of the benefits that both the plaintiff and defendant enjoy within the Federal Reserve System, which benefits include some – but not all – provisions of the Bill of Rights. Within the Federal Reserve System, the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights are actually privileges recognized by the legislators of the State of Michigan, meaning, the privileges are subject to the needs of THE PEOPLE. All court proceedings begin on the commerce-side of the court system in the applicable COUNTY. At all times, the judge is acting to internally administrate the individual trust accounts that pertain to each party, in accordance with the private-law governing the action. The facts presented by the parties are judged as valid or not valid against the governing law.

How those of us who transact our energy within public law obtain justice within the private-law court system, when it’s necessary to do so, is best accomplished by providing prior Notice of our sovereign societal status to the federal-level Attorney General, respectfully instructing him to act to cause correction of the internal records of the Federal Reserve System. The Department of Justice acts on behalf of and legally instructs officers of the United States (the jurisdiction in league with foreign central bankers). The intent of our Notice is to end the presumption that we are transacting parties within that commerce-based jurisdiction. We can also provide notice about that event having occurred to the incorporated state-level AG and county-level prosecuting attorney and sheriff. The content of such Notice identifies that we exercise our right to energize national money instead of foreign currency (in accordance with the Federal Reserve Act’s Section 16), and that we are operating the extant government of a State in the Union as a participant in an assembly of people functioning under the Public Law; the assembly can initially be as few as two people, because one of the purposes is for the participants to hold one another to the governing law. The Notice also contains a certified copy of the Birth Certificate that identifies the individual trust vessel / account established for us, so the receiving officer can correct internal records. If we have minor children, we seek correction of the records pertaining to them. The Notice can also contain our claim upon certain physical land, since we steward land in sole right-of-soil dominion, and within that document we can include our record pertaining to our unique Creator-caused genesis (our origin) that occurs months prior to the secular birth registration that resulted in a Birth Certificate. The Notice can further include our claim on our private automobiles. Within this general Notice document, we make known that we choose to not renew any registrations that pertain to having domicile within the Federal Reserve System, and that we do not make use of a welfare benefit therein (which causes presence) – such registrations being as a resident, voter, driver, real property owner, or registrations applicable to a vehicle, pet, etc. Our Notice makes clear that if we must make use of an individual trust account created by a utility company or other public-service provider based within the Federal Reserve System, that we enjoy peaceful pass-through use of the account and during such contractual use our expressed energy remains in the monetary medium of national money of exchange. 

The courts within the Federal Reserve System are such public-service providers. As is stated above, the judge’s duty to the public (THE PEOPLE) is to perform the service of correctly administrating the individual trust accounts of the parties to an action. Regarding a court-related situation, our general Notice about our sovereign status received by the federal-level Attorney General activates our right to rely on the entire Bill of Rights at all times, which rights link with the public-law based governmental Trust established by the 1776 Declaration of Independence. Therefore our Notice causes officers acting for or in the courts to recognize the “supreme Law of the Land” (see the federal constitution’s Article VI) as the law that protects us and governs their actions with respect to us and our private interests; the federal constitution is the fourth Organic Law pertaining to the structure of our original governmental Trust (see “History Section A” accessed from the sidebar of this site). As to our status, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act is a “Law” referenced in Article VI, because it’s a Law made in Pursuance of the Commerce clause in that constitution’s Article I. The fact that we operate neither domicile nor presence within the Federal Reserve System, and have given notice that we operate our private interests within Michigan’s public law government, requires court officers to provide us justice under public law. Because we enjoy peaceful pass-through use of the individual trust account established by central bankers – being an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between the Congress and bankers – a judicial officer must recognize that we use that pass-through right to merely convey the truth about a situation. This includes our presentment of our eye-witness testimony about a party to a private-law action in which we are not involved; in other words, in such situation we act in a charitable manner to aid justice.

Our general Notice to the federal Attorney General fulfills our public-law duty, even if that officer fails to correct the internal record and also fails to inquire about any portion of our Notice document that is unclear to him. Our Notice is liveried to him via Registered Mail, which is the public-law means of directly connecting with him – essentially being a communication conveyed (in a locked pouch via a USPS employee as messenger) from the hand of one Head of State (us) into the hand of another Head of State or his agent about a solemn matter to be addressed by the recipient.

The value of providing notice to a COUNTY prosecuting attorney about our Notice requiring record correction is that it forms our First Notice to the lower-level attorney. If that attorney (who perhaps ignores it) then initiates the approval of an action within the Federal Reserve System per which he claims we are a party, upon our initial realization of it we immediately issue a public-law demurrer to his attention; demurrer means “to object”. That’s a communication to him alerting him that his presentment of his claim to us lacks his inclusion of the fact-based documented proof of his authority to govern our energy. In other words, we give him due process notice in order for him to perfect his claim – that such claim exists. We can include with that communication to him a copy of the general Notice document about our preexisting sovereign status, as the Second Notice (or as our First Notice). If he then fails to provide us with the fact-based documented evidence he relies on to conclude that his claim exists against us, he goes into default, and in public law, default judgment nihil dicit (nihil dicit means “he says nothing”). We provide that final communication to him. The premise of our right is, if false claims are rebutted prior to the day and time to respond listed on a Summons or a charging document, the instrument and its presumptions cease to have any effect. If he does not withdraw his approval of his action, or does not withdraw the action if a court clerk has created a case housing it, then he’s acting without authority and he cannot invoke the court’s in personam jurisdiction over us, which means the judge lacks the authority to issue any judgment concerning our interests; we don't operate a persona, which mean a legal role.

When a judicial officer becomes aware that his court lacks the existence of a defendant (us, as a non-transacting body) to an action, the judge must notify the clerk of court that no action / case exists as the judge’s means of correctly administering the (EMPTY) individual trust account identified on the prosecutor’s paperwork. The means for us to notify an assigned judge about such situation is by directly providing the judge with notice in the form of a special correspondence – special, because we act from our sovereign status “Sui Juris”– informing him of our actual status and the prosecutor’s refusal to withdraw his action, and we require the judge to act sua sponte (“on his own”) to dispose of the non-existent action and case. In conjunction with our special act, we contract with the clerk of court, per an instruction communication to the clerk, informing the clerk to perform an eleemosynary (charitable) function by providing it to the assigned judge as a “special correspondence” from us. If the clerk insists on including it on the case’s Register of Actions, it should be noted as a special notice and motion from us in the capacity of Sui Juris Defendant-Intervenor, because our intent is to not file anything into the case, which would indicate our appearance in the action. We are intervening (which means no one is representing our private interests) to aid the assigned judge perform his commerce-law based function.

If we must utilize the court’s service as a plaintiff, which would mean our private interests had been harmed by a party who does transact in the commerce-law jurisdiction and is therefore subject to the judge’s judgments, we present our cause from our Sui Juris capacity. That begins with our contract with the clerk of court, exchanging our payment of national money for her assignment of a competent and impartial officer to preside over our cause. Our document detailing our cause would include our documentation of our sovereign status and clear notice that our rights and obligations are governed only by public law, while the offending party is governed by the applicable private law that controls his social conduct. We would appoint the assigned judge as our Trustee in Law, the Law being the supreme Law of the Land that governs his administration of the individual trust vessel / account that we identify we are moving “as to” in peaceful pass-through capacity, being either the trust name showing on the Birth Certificate or the version of that applicable to our bank account.

The last point we offer to our Readers is this. We must have a sense of our immortality to get over the fear of the power from which commerce-law jurisdiction officers can act. They can only exert authority over our own unencumbered God-endowed and constitutionally-protected sole and Soul authority over our private interests if we succumb to fearing that we will not prevail when we approach them in a peaceful and respectful manner with our use of facts and public law.

Saturday, November 21, 2020

The current court system is established to serve a specific status of people, but court officials must also serve those of us who do not operate that status – Part Three, Section C: How we utilize the Federal Reserve Act to access our right of money and the protection of the entire Bill of Rights

As we presented in our Part Three, Section B within the 7th and 8th paragraphs, singular American people are the intended third-party beneficiary of the contract entered into between the Congress and the agents of central bankers per passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. And that is why those people who choose to endorse Federal Reserve Notes literally bond that global currency with their energy. Also presented is that “lawful money”, referenced in Section 16 of that Act, is not taxable, because it’s issued by the sovereign – the American people’s shared sovereignty (under God’s sovereignty) – per our creation of our Union from our authority in our landed estate (See our History Section B, page 1, found on the sidebar of this site). Only the currency issued by a private bank is taxable, and the Federal Reserve is a private mostly-foreign-owned banking corporation. We explain more about that below.

We further presented in Section B, within its 10th paragraph, that in 1866 the banker-influenced Congress passed the Contraction Act, which retired from circulation some of the silver-backed treasury notes called “Greenbacks”, the paper money / notes issued during President Lincoln’s administration. Today, our national money is just termed “United States Notes” and is lawful money of exchange, although they are not redeemable in specie. For our purpose, our demand to handle redeemed lawful money is what’s important. 

The quantity of United States Notes is maintained at $300,000,000, and those notes only circulate within central bank vaults, the reason –- per Fed bankers –- is that Federal Reserve Notes serve the same purpose (for payment of debts), that most people use FRNs, and that U.S. Notes are costly to reproduce when worn out. United States Notes show only the red seal of the Treasury plus the signatures of the Treasurer of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, while FRNs show the seal of the United States Federal Reserve System plus the green seal of The Department of the Treasury. U.S. Notes can occasionally be found at a coin dealer, as a novelty, because they don’t generally circulate; they are spendable, but will cost more than the spendable face value. This information about U.S. Notes is verified per Section 5115 of Title 31 U.S. Code: “(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes-- (1) are payable to bearer; and (2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes. (b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation-- (1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and (2) may not be held or used for a reserve.” That final statement means a bank cannot use U.S. Notes –- since that’s national money –- for its fractional banking activities (the bank can retain 10% worth of deposits and loan out 90%, within the Fed’s regulatory guidelines). Both forms of notes are legal tender, but only U.S. Notes are lawful money. That is verified per 31 USC Section 452, which states (the emphasis is ours): “United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.” In Section 5103, Federal Reserve notes are designated only as “legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.” FRNs are not designated as “lawful money”, although legal tender is lawful to use. Notice that U.S. Notes are payable to bearer, which is important, as we’ll explain. Also realize that the word “legal”, as in legal tender, conveys a means (tender) to transfer right, title and interest to or in property. In other words, the right of money is not the same as Use of the right of money; the first is property, and the latter references an equitable or beneficial interest in money through possession. Another way we can think about money and debt is that money is the means of exchanging energy with others, and debt is the means of extracting energy from others. As we’ve stated in other Sections of this post, the court system is based on the extraction of energy, caused by the Lien people put on their energy when endorsing the Fed’s private credit system. 

The Fed’s currency is spent into circulation, because people cause the circulation upon their decision to not redeem a banking instrument for lawful money, and, when people obtain loans from banks. FRNs are obligations of the United States (the post Civil War United States entity) per 31 USC Section 411, so people who energize them become “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States per the 14th Amendment. We explain exactly how the 14th Amendment is utilized by officers in the Federal Reserve System within our History Section B on its page 8 (accessed from this site’s sidebar). 

Per the Fed Act, the Congress only requires that we make a demand for lawful money as the means of indicating that we choose to not endorse / energize the private credit of foreign bankers (who internally manipulate their debt-based currency to their own gain). One makes the demand on the back of a banking instrument, such as a check, by writing or stamping (a stamp can be acquired via a private vendor) “Redeemed in lawful money, per 12 U.S.C. §411”; some people also put a line through the ‘endorsement’ indication found preprinted on the back of a check. Making that demand causes the central bankers to buy back debt from the United States in the amount showing on the face of the check, which maintains the set amount of U.S. Notes circulating within bank vaults. Since the instrument becomes a bearer instrument, one can obtain the cash from the bank upon which the check is drawn, but what one will physically get is FRNs. If the bank requests a fee to cash the check (if one has no account there), it is one’s call as to how much energy one chooses to exert to explain that a bearer instrument requires the bank to provide the funds. If one is seeking a large amount of funds, have mercy on the banker. The bank must keep an amount of funds available in its vault for it’s customers’ anticipated daily withdrawals. The accounting matter as to one’s non-endorsement on the instrument is performed by officers within the central bank system. One should make a photocopy of the front and back of the banking instrument for retaining as a record, it being proof of claim that there is no residual public interest in what one acquires or upon what one lawfully does with what one acquires. Since lawful money is not taxable, if one must fill out a tax form, the physical evidence of lawful money use must accompany the form; the IRS comprehends this matter. One is also not subject to the secular administrative laws (codes and statutes) that govern human-energy within the Federal Reserve System. Thus one cannot be presumed by officers of the STATE OF MICHIGAN (or STATE OF …) to be subject to its maritime-law jurisdiction simply because one physically exists.

Demanding to handle lawful money is a matter of fulfilling obedience to the law in which one trusts. Rights flow from obligations. He who holds the right to redeem holds an equitable interest in law. The Congress had to recognized the right, because our first founding / Organic Law memorializes that man is created in the image of God. To reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God (Genesis 1:27). It is legal to make a demand for lawful money, for the claimant has issued a claim upon which relief, in law, can be granted. Our demand to handle usury-free lawful money also indicates that we abide in The Laws of Nature’s God, as presented specifically at Proverbs 11:1 “A false balance is an abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.”

If one receives Social Security funds, which are automatically deposited into one’s bank account, there is no loss of the right to such money when one chooses to begin demanding to handle lawful money, because banks must obey the Fed Act and SS checks are not mailed directly to people for cashing. That money represents the energy one put into the functioning of our society. We are the treasure of our society. We must intentionally choose to bond our energy with foreign-sourced currency to evidence that we choose to take a benefit from it. And no one is taking welfare from SS funds, since the currency manipulated by the Fed constantly loses market value by design, and the value of the energy one exerted in the past is no longer commensurate with the value of the monetary-equivalent of one’s ‘contribution’ made to the SS Administration from which one is now receiving funds that have been held. One does not give up the right to receive pension funds either. One’s contract with an employer is separate from one’s consent to contract with foreign bankers.

When one redeems banking instruments for lawful money, one is making a peaceful pass-though use (as a third-party beneficiary of the Congress’s contract with Fed bankers) of the established commerce-law-based individual Trust name resembling one’s given name and family affiliation but spelled in all upper-case letters, which is how one’s bank account is designated. One’s non-endorsement on the back of a banking instrument renders the face amount of the instrument as being non-reserve funds –- rather than a deposit of public currency to the bank that the bank can use. If one’s bank objects to physically storing non-reserve funds, which is what it must do for one’s retrieval of one’s funds, then one can speak with an officer in the bank’s Trust Department about setting up a non-reserve account. It is fair that the bank receives a fee for storing one’s funds that take up its vault space, especially if there’s a large amount of one’s funds involved. The bank does not have to do business in such manner, so if a bank declines, make the request at another bank. We people who abide in God’s Law may become a large number of people in a local area, so a bank president who respects God’s Law may choose to benefit from establishing such fee-based accounts for multiple people, especially if the amount of storage space is relatively small due to people intentionally choosing –- per good-faith agreement –- to not keep a large amount of funds there. Eventually, we will be a society in which loans from our banks will be fee-based and in national money.

Saturday, October 24, 2020

The current court system is established to serve a specific status of people, but court officials must also serve those of us who do not operate that status - Part Three, Section B: The key facts about the Federal Reserve Act pertaining to constitutionality and its operation

In the previous parts of this post, we have presented that the 1776 Declaration of Independence and other three sequential Organic Laws have established the American peoples’ right and duty to self-govern, meaning, to act side-by-side to operate the government at all levels; this is termed the “republican form of government”. We have presented that The Constitution of the United States (which prescribes the duties of the Congress in service to us people) includes ten Amendments, called the Bill of Rights, that secures our sole authority over our own God-endowed rights, and, secures our societal governing power, which rights and power cannot be usurped by government office-holders. The Bill of Rights, when operable in the entirety, grounds the presumption of the non-authority of government office-holders as a starting point when we communicate with them. The “supreme Law of the Land” (U. S. Constitution, Art. VI) pertains to the entirety of the Bill of Rights. This section of our Part Three presents that the Federal Reserve Act contains our access to the protection of the entire Bill of Rights. Being qualified to be protected by the entire Bill of Rights protects us from being subject to the post Civil War (1868) 14th Amendment to that constitution. The separate 14th Amendment pertains to persons who operate a public status, and links to only some of the Bill of Rights; in other words, it grounds a government officer’s presumption of the non-authority of those persons to be the sole governor of their societal rights and obligations.

The hidden Venetian-family governors of current-day bureaucrats rely on the 14th Amendment because it authorizes their secular Birth registration scheme (performed by hospital staff-members after a 9-month old baby separates from its mother’s womb) as the means of being able to place a commerce-based Lien on peoples’ exercise of societal rights if people bond their energy with the Venetians’ currency–-being currency within the Federal Reserve System that they established. The Federal Reserve is not an agency of our federal government. People themselves consent to activate that Lien by not utilizing the remedy from it, accessed within the Federal Reserve Act (“Fed Act”). The Lien is performance-based, the basis being that a social conduct obligation exists to do or to not do something, or to pay something. The current court system’s officers and municipal government officers act on that Lien, or their presumption that such Lien is operable or pertains to every human who they physically view. The point being, no one can view that such Lien exists simply because a human exists.

We now focus on the Fed Act in terms of its constitutionality, and why the American people’s remedy from entering into the international jurisdiction of law, where the Federal Reserve System operates, was included in the Act.

As the Declaration of Independence memorializes, our republican form of government secures our private rights, on the premise that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed”. The key word here is consent. We move our private interests with our energy. We energize the act of observing, of learning or reasoning, and then of choosing to do or not do something. To choose is to consent. We express the energetic-substance of our Being through our direct actions, or in the representative-medium of money. The Fed Act provides us access to national money, currently in the form of United States Notes as silver-backed money of exchange. People can also choose to utilize the more familiar form of ‘money’, Federal Reserve Notes, which is circulating global currency of account, like an IOU circulating amongst the persons who use it, backed only by those people who pledge their energy to the use of Federal Reserve bankers to fund the operation of the form of government within the Federal Reserve System. Such pledge of energy causes people to become subject to the transacting rules of commerce, such as statutes and ordinances legislated within the coordinated territorial and commerce-based government jurisdictions that we’ve referenced in Part Two of this post.

The remedy provision of the Fed Act is found as its Section 16, codified as 12 United States Code, Section 411, which states: “Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.” The key portions of this description are: (1) the notes are issued only for making advances to Federal reserve banks through agents and for no other purpose, and (2) the notes are obligations of the United States … receivable for taxes and other public dues, and (3) Federal reserve notes must be redeemed in lawful money on demand … at any Federal Reserve bank. So what that means is, one’s use of Federal reserve notes (FRNs) causes one to be an individual member bank and its sole operational agent, and, one is advanced such foreign currency and must pay a user-fee for it–-usury–and the court system and other internal governmental entities must receive FRNs to satisfy one’s public dues (obligations existing within the Federal Reserve System), and, one can redeem FRNs for “lawful money” upon one’s demand made at any Federal Reserve Bank (which all American banks and banking institutions are).

Many people believe that the Congress’s passage of the Fed Act was unconstitutional. The truth is, everything the Congress has done since the Civil War has been in breach of the trust that the American people repose in that body. But that aside–-since our immediate and private remedy from the Venetian’s attempted conquer of America’s nationality via the bureaucracy of their monetarist empire is secured to us per the Congress’s passage of the Fed Act–-court rulings prior to the Civil War addressed the underlying matter of the constitutionality of the federal government’s power to incorporate, even pertaining to a central bank. Prior to that matter being taken up, importantly, in the 1803 Marbury v Madison case the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Marshall (a Federalist) established the principle of ‘judicial review’ of the actions of the legislative and executive components of the federal government. The constitution does not explicitly provide such power, but provides that un-elected body with only the power to compel an official of the other two components to perform a duty.

That assumed judicial power was exercised in 1819 when Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion in McColloch v Maryland, holding that the Congress had implied power to incorporate and establish a central bank charter. The court characterized the power of Congress as being a broad, comprehensive and rational authority over the subjects of finance and currency derived from the aggregate powers in Article I pertaining to fiscal controls, providing that laws were “necessary and proper” for the execution of its powers. Because this ruling would open the door to the Congress’s later delegation of its fiscal responsibility over to foreign bankers, we add that Chief Justice Marshall expressed what was proper and what was improper. Beginning with proper, the ruling stated: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution”. Addressing what was improper, which he directed to the States’ potential interference with the means employed by the central government–-and here we can interject Federal Reserve bankers in place of the States–-the ruling stated: “To impose on it [Congress] the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another Government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measure uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution”. The U. S. Supreme Court repeated its approval of such power of the Congress in 1935, related to the holding in Norman v Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co [case subject: that ‘gold clauses’ in private contracts only secure payment in money, not in gold as a commodity]. In pertinent part, the court held that Congress is authorized to provide a sound and uniform paper currency for the country and secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation, quoting Veazie Bank v Fenno (1869). What that U.S. Supreme Court in effect secured is that a “sound and uniform paper currency” is sound only by being trusted as sound by the American people as the benefit secured to them by the Congress per the delegated power given to the Congress. In other words, it is the people themselves who secure / bond the soundness of paper currency. Importantly, the Veazie case, also a U.S. Supreme Court case, additionally provides to us that there can be no taxation of lawful money of the United States, but that lawful money issued by a private bank was taxable. Such private bank would be the future Federal Reserve, functioning via its state member banks.

Another important case, not specific to the Fed Act but pertaining to the processing of the resulting Lien on peoples’ energy, is the 1842 Swift v Tyson case. The holding in that case initiated the blending of law and equity as to instruments of a general commercial nature being properly the purview of the federal courts, not the state courts [pre-Civil War state courts], under the general principles and doctrines of commercial jurisprudence. Equity essentially means fairness, and pertains to contracts or agreements. In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure established one system for processing both law and equity cases. Soon after, most states abolished the procedural distinctions between (statutory) law and equity cases. In federal courts and state courts all civil cases now proceed in the same fashion, regardless of whether they involve legal or equitable redress. That is because the courts are administering the rights and obligations of those people who trans-act together within the Federal Reserve System. Officers of the current court system, who operate commercial jurisprudence, do so from the presumption that all people consent to transact energy exchanges in commerce. There are some additional historic events that support this premise of presumption. 

In 1863, during the banker-instigated so-called Civil War, President Lincoln ordered issuance of the Lieber Code (written by the historian and legal scholar Francis Lieber) as instruction for the Union army to execute warfare in a moral manner. The military was the authority that would protect property in accordance with the laws and usages of war (an international doctrine); the word ‘usages’ relates to title to property. The effect was that the military held the title to all property in abeyance, meaning in temporary suspension, until such time that the people would resume civilian self-governmental power over private and public property. In 1864 the acting Congress amended the terms “state”, “States” and “United States” to mean the territories and District of Columbia (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch.173, sec. 182), per the Congress’s plenary power; this describes the current-day base of the Federal Reserve. In 1861, when the war began, under condition of the emergency President Lincoln ordered specie-backed treasury notes, commonly known as Greenbacks, to be printed. Such lawful money of the United States satisfied government spending and the buying power of consumers. Five days after the war ended in 1865, Lincoln was assassinated. Also relevant is that, at that same time silver was discovered in the West. The prospect of national specie-backed paper money as the medium of exchange threatened the (Venetian) bankers’ planned oligarchical-control of our post-war government, because such control was based on gold internally backing their ability to manipulate an international currency to their benefit. So, in 1866, they caused the Congress to pass the Contraction Act, which retired some of the silver-backed Greenbacks from circulation. They could not eliminate the national money, however, and what we know today as United States Notes are actually Greenbacks that still circulate, but only within bank vaults. We’ll present more about that in our Section C of this Part Three. The bankers even caused the Congress to pass the Coinage Act in 1873, as the means of demonizing the peoples’ use of silver. Gold coins were pronounced as the only form of coin money.

In furtherance of the bankers’ establishment of oligarchical control over the American people, in 1878 (in the continuing absence of functional civilian governments) our federal Municipal Government was incorporated by the bankers as the District of Columbia municipal corporation. The U.S. constitution was adopted as the charter, by operation of the 1868 14th Amendment; the due process clause in that Amendment links to the Bill of Rights but the rules of commerce control which rights apply. In the same year (1878), the American Bar Association was founded in Saratoga Springs, New York; associations existed in all federally-franchised States by 1925. In our Section A of this Part Three we present that attorneys are licensed (by the Venetian families who own the Bar Associations) to attack American vessels in international jurisdictions of law (individual vessels / accounts named after singular people, established for the purpose of people moving their energy pledged to the use of central bankers). In our Part Two we reference the congressional passage of the 1851 Limited Liability Act that bought the rules of Admiralty Law onto land as Maritime Law, revised by Congress in 1884 in relation to the 14th Amendment, revised in 1886 to extend to all debts and liabilities applicable to the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act. We now add that it was revised again in 1936 to include the central bankers’ debt-based currency. The Federal Reserve is a private Maritime Limited Liability corporation. After the Federal Reserve System was established, the Congress allowed state banks to close, which gave the Fed bankers a monopoly position. The individualized vessels the bankers established for the American people, in conjunction with a municipal cestui que vie trust (which means a Trust of a Trust), are the maritime vessels that attorneys are licensed to attack in international jurisdictions of law. 

In 1887 the Congress also created the Interstate Commerce Commission, which initiated Administrative Law (statutory codes made Public Policy by federally-franchised State “lawmakers”) enforced in the courts as administrative courts. When the Federal Reserve System was re-chartered by President Roosevelt in 1933, the National Conference of Governors was established. The governors pledged the good faith and credit of the citizenry of their federally-franchised States (States on paper) to stand as sureties for the debt of the municipal US corporation (incorporated in1878). That is from where current-day governors derive the authority to issue executive orders that compel residents’ conduct; residents’ conduct is usually compelled by the legislatures’ passage of bills that the governors sign into administrative law that the courts enforce in conjunction with the States’ law-enforcement departments. In 1934, per passage of the Foreign Trade Zones Act, FDR signed over all governmental service contracts to the bankers’ control. The 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement established the International Monetary Fund, a system of monetary management of the rules for commercial and financial relations among the United States, Canada, Western European countries, and others. The IMF chartered a new Trust Management Organization in France doing business as UNITED STATES, INC., and also took over control of State of State franchises and opened coordinating STATE OF STATE franchises (such as the “STATE OF MICHIGAN”). The latter form of human-energy control, activated when people energize the bankers’ currency, produces funding for the State of State military-style governing of human conduct per statutes passed as corporate public policy by ‘lawmakers’ (Legislatures). In 1952 the Uniform Commercial Code was developed, to which all statutes of the US franchised States must comply; the Attorneys General of the States review all legislative bills for compliance prior to their inclusion into the States’ Public Policy. By 1971, all States had revised their constitutions per which the residents authorized the utilization of Maritime Law codes in the administrative courts.

In our Part Three’s final Section C, we focus on the operation of the Fed Act remedy from being subjected to the bankers’ scheme. By exercising the remedy, we defeat the Venetian families’ empiricist structure designed to capture our energy by capturing our minds. We defeat it with our exercise of never-extinguished nationalism derived from our original structuring of our state and federal level government. That original structure is concisely explained in the "History Section B" accessed from the sidebar of this site.

Saturday, October 17, 2020

The current court system is established to serve a specific status of people, but court officials must also serve those of us who do not operate that status – Part Three, Section A: How the Federal Reserve as a central bank became instituted by the agents of unknown foreign families intent on enslaving the American people

Parts One and Two of this post have presented that the 1776 Declaration of Independence is the first “Organic Law”, as termed by the Congress, followed by the three other sequential Laws, ending with The Constitution of the United States (fully ratified in 1791) that includes ten Amendments securing the people’s rights and powers that cannot be usurped by government office-holders. The foregoing is supported by the fact-based content of our "History Section A" and "History Section B" found on the sidebar of this site.

This Part Three is divided into three sections in order to break the length into a more readable format. Section A reveals the background of the Federal Reserve that is necessary to first comprehend in order to understand the reason why we must free ourselves from the unseen controllers of the Fed who have been attacking our societal interests. Section B focuses on the Federal Reserve Act itself, in terms of constitutionality and operation. Section C focuses on the act of freeing ourselves, provided right within the Federal Reserve Act, which qualifies us State Nationals to operate the Republican form of Government of every State in the national Union (see the U. S. Constitution at Article IV, Section 4) wherein we enjoy all the protections of the four Organic Laws that structure state and federal level governmental operations. 

We begin with background facts about how the Federal Reserve System became instituted. 

As we’ve presented in our Overview (Part One of this post), the Federal Reserve System operates under international maritime law, also called the ‘law merchant’. To be able to fully trust that this is true, we urge our Readers to view at least the first 10 minutes of this video (actually the seven minutes from the 3:09 – 10:09 mark), consisting of a text in the form of several slides. It’s an overview of the fascinating historic synopsis about the development of the oligarchical principle presented in this three-hour video titled “The Oligarchy - The Black Nobility - The Illuminati - The Synarchy”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSQr0lFrq4 This links the Babylonian cult of Apollo to the Roman Empire, which was replaced by Venice as the center of a new world monetarist empire with immense maritime power under the secret control of powerful Venetian families (the Black Nobility, landed aristocrats) operating their interests as private banks. The Winged Lion of Babylon was their symbol. As one of the presenters in this video states, “Venice became the residence of Satan on earth”. Venice propagated its system not by conquer of land, but through its bureaucracy in the nationalities it conquered. The Venetian families transferred some of their functions to London when the American continent was discovered. Later, when the colonists began to internally control their own credit system, an idea that could spread into Europe, the Venetian families’ planned oligarchical control over all human energy on earth--through interlocking banking directorates, holding companies and off-shore banking empires, all camouflaged out of public view--became threatened. The families migration of operations to London brought in the Rothschild dynasty of financiers to carry out the families “capital flight’ operations–-the international deployment of mammoth sums of capital without the knowledge or supervision of governments. The King of England became indebted to the bankers. Bankers privatized England’s revenues and charged for their services. The King pledged the wool production as collateral, and then the sheep. Eventually the farmers, via debt-farming, went bankrupt and handed land over to the bankers. [Which is just what has occurred to the American people, via mortgages.] The British East India Company took over England to create the British Empire. By 1763, London became the new Venice. Switzerland became the banking haven. 

Of importance to us Americans, continuing this Section of our post’s Part Three, was the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694. King William’s Lord Treasurer organized England’s first national debt on behalf of the Venetians. At the 2:17:56 mark in this recommended video, it presents “how the fondi operates” (a “fondo” being the collective interest of a Venetian family operating as a bank or insurance company, and fondi being a syndicate of families). The managers of a fondi developed a highly effective clearinghouse of policy and operations. As to more current times, their strategy called the “Global 2000”, developed in the mid 1960s, outlined how to take over the United States economy–-they would establish a Eurodollar market as a pool for foreign-held U.S. dollar obligations of over $1.5 trillion in a supranational financial market that would be beyond the reach of the U.S. government, and then delink the U.S. dollar from gold, which delinking did happened in 1971. 

The Venetian families’ planned corporate takeover of national governments involved utilizing cash flow from the narcotics trade and controlling large commodity markets (such as sugar and coffee). In the video’s section on “Synarchy” (at the 2:44:36 mark) communism, actually fascism, was introduced by the families into their global control structure. These ‘illuminati’ families’ gnostic-cult belief centers on salvation being only obtainable through the most heinous of sins, which sins they have committed per their planned and ordered acts of enslaving, torturing, murdering, or starving and poisoning the people of earth or the ordering of people into economic austerity to reduce the population to the manageable status of ‘sheeple’. The word “corporation” is a fascist creation. It refers to corporative mentality–-“the inducing of a moral atmosphere among the producing classes, which is essential to making regulations effective, inserted into the legislative machinery of the State for increasing the legislative powers and heightening officers’ political and constitutional prestige”. Doesn’t this relate to the mentality of the current-day American corporate States’ officers, and (sadly) the mentality of a large portion of the American people?

In our American-government history synopsis referenced in our post’s Part Two (and our History Section B found on the sidebar of this site), we present how these bankers fomented the Civil War and then thwarted the peoples' reconstruction of civilian governments afterward by placing the organic States in a Trust they established to create their own corporate form of government. But the same Venetian-family backed bankers were also the cause of our Revolutionary War, due to their establishment of the 1694 Bank of England.

The establishment of the Bank of England was the root cause of the colonists’ decision to declare their independence. The King had imposed more and more taxes on the colonists in order for the King to pay the banking interest owed to Rothschild, agent of Venetian families. The colonists’ own internal script was banned by England’s 1764 Currency Act; no bills of credit were allowed for anything. The tax paid by the colonists had to be in gold. Even though that Act was reversed by the Parliament in 1773, which is why that matter was not included within the indictment portion of the Declaration of Independence, by then the seeds of independence had been sown. 

After the colonists won independence, some of the prominent statesmen of the day, known as Federalists, pressed for a strong federal government and the creation of a national bank. Alexander Hamilton was chief amongst them, and served as the first United States Treasury secretary. He was born in the British West Indies, came to the United States when the Revolutionary War had begun, served as a military officer, and married into a wealthy family. After the war he advocated for the creation of a central bank, and did create the first one: the First Bank of the United States. 

From this summation about Hamilton, provided by the current-day Federal Reserve, titled “The History of the Federal Reserve System”, it blatantly includes that “Hamilton learned about central banking at an early age, when he read about how the Bank of England provided liquid capital as a way to expand commerce, which helped Britain become a global trading power”. Was Hamilton thus educated or guided by agents of the Venetian families, or is this statement by the Fed an attempt to equate the form of the first national bank here to the Fed’s structure as the means to legitimize the structure? In any case, Hamilton’s idea of debt being an asset initiated the psychological acceptance of the wholly foreign bankers’ debt-based currency that exists today in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.

Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of a national bank on the premise that it would create a financial monopoly that would undermine state banks and adopt policies that favored financiers and merchants who tended to be creditors, over family farmers who tended to be debtors. Jefferson also argued that the Constitution did not grant the government the authority to establish corporations, including a national bank. Hamilton argued that the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause implied that the Congress had the power to create a national bank if needed, and that the new republic lacked a central institution to expand the money supply, extend credit, collect taxes, pay the nation’s debts, handle foreign exchange and store the government’s money, according to this summation (which is the link within the previous link about Hamilton). Despite opposing voices, Hamilton’s proposed National Bank Act cleared the House and Senate, and President Washington signed it, creating the first national bank in late 1791 with a twenty-year charter that would expire in 1811. In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall (who was also a Federalist) ruled that the Congress did have implied power to create a national bank charter. We provide some more court-based information about that in Section B of this Part Three. 

The charter of the First Bank of the United States was not renewed. Many of its initial investors were foreign, and what was not known by the American people was that those investors were under Venetian families’ secret control. The fact that there were foreign investors did not sit well with the American people. The U.S. government, the largest shareholder, did not directly manage the bank. By controlling the money supply available to state banks for loaning to people, and controlling the level of interest rate charged to borrowers, the national bank indirectly conducted monetary policy (which the Federal Reserve does overtly today). For four years proponents tried to obtain the vote to renew the bank’s charter, but Hamilton was dead, and his pro-Bank Federalist Party was out of power. By 1811 the number of state banks had increased greatly and those institutions feared the national bank’s competition and power. The renewal failed by one vote. 

This link (from the same Fed source) provides insight into the creation of the Second (central) Bank of the United States. This event ties into the War of 1812 and the behind-the-scenes influence of Venetian banking families’ oligarchical strategies. The first related event occurred in 1811, when the original 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was proposed. That Amendment prohibited anyone owing foreign allegiance from holding a public Office; it was ratified by the requisite number of the existing States in 1819 but would pertain only to the government established by our four founding Organic Laws, not to the corporate structure criminally instituted by foreign bankers after the Civil War. The other background event occurred in 1794, the Treaty of Westminster between Britain’s City State of Westminster and the Crown Temple (ecclesiastical court). It pledged amity for commerce and navigation in perpetuity with the newly formed United States of America. When the charter of the first central bank here was not renewed in 1811, the Venetian families’ strategy was undermined. So Britain began to undermine the U.S. economy, which is standard practice to cause a war per which a targeted nation would go into debt. Britain used its navy to blockade U.S. trade with other nations, which had the desired effect of causing U.S. debt because of dependency on revenue derived from tariffs on such trade. The War of 1812 was a conflict fought over British violations of U.S. maritime rights. It ended in a draw, with the exchange of ratifications per the Treaty of Ghent. But during the war, the White House was burned by the British (or hired agents of the Venetians) for the purpose of destroying the 13th Amendment and our government’s founding documents; the attempt failed. The plan to establish a second central bank was then advanced by the Venetian families’ recruited prominent families within the United States, such as John Jacob Astor and others. These recruited families, as lenders and financiers themselves, petitioned for a national bank that would restore a stable currency and insure their business interests. President James Madison, who had opposed the creation of the first national bank, admitted the need for a second one for financing the war with Britain, but when peace came in 1815, it was Congress that rejected new efforts to create the bank. Once again, however, the federal government’s financial position deteriorated amid a broader economic turndown. Only when state banks had stopped redeeming their notes did President Madison succumb to the bank proponents and sign an act in 1816 to establish the Second Bank of the United States with a twenty-year charter, which charter allowed the substantial involvement of foreign investors. A subsequent change in the Bank’s presidency included policies that led to a depression, characterized by deflation and high unemployment. One such policy drove state-chartered financial institutions into bankruptcy–-the national bank had presented state banknotes for specie, and they lacked the specie to cover the redemptions. 

We must interject here another foreign event of critical significance to the United States–-the 1822 Treaty of Verona, which violated the Treaty of Westminster. This treaty was between the British Monarch and the then Pope. It declared the (United States) representative form of government incompatible with the Divine Right of Kings and with Papal Supremacy. This allowed the Monarch to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to members of the Bar Association (a British Crown commercial company), which would issue licenses to privateers–-attorneys–-to attack American ‘vessels’ [individual commerce-based Trust accounts] in international jurisdictions of law. This was done so the Monarch could pay off debt to international bankers. The Bar Association is a private military association. Attornors act to transfer homage and fealty to or between public-estates. 

To continue – When Andrew Jackson retained his presidency in 1832, he ended the existence of a central bank here. Another would not be established for over 75 years, and that would require a banker-fomented Civil War to gain the bankers more power over commerce and then their further infiltration into the workings of American government via control of politicians. President Jackson had always distrusted the Bank on the basis of it trampling states’ rights and because the structuring of the Bank did not allow effective regulation by the Congress, the president and the people. In 1833 Jackson ordered that federal deposits be removed from the national Bank and put into state banks. In 1834 the House voted against re-chartering the Second Bank of the United States, and also confirmed that federal deposits should remain in state banks. In 1835 President Jackson paid off the national debt, but he did not realize that he needed to warn the people that the danger of a central bank was the operators’ ability to control the issuance of currency. 

It was not until the panic of 1907–-caused per the Venetian families’ effective strategies–-that a third central bank was instituted by congressional passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. That established a Bank charter that was renewed–-due to the continuing effects of the Great Depression–-in 1933. In 1935 The Banking Act amended the Federal Reserve Act, changing its name to Federal Reserve System. 

The linked video presents that 60 ancient Venetian families still exist today. The Warburg family is one of them. It was Paul Warburg who wrote the primary features of the 1913 Fed Act, based on the strategic operation of the Venetians’ oligarchical principle

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

The current court system is established to serve a specific status of people, but court officials must also serve those of us who do not operate that status – Part Two: Historic proof that the American peoples’ authority operates “the Government”

This Part of our site’s primary post presents that officers who proclaim themselves as the authorities within “the government” administering “the law”, are in-fact acting in breach of the original structure of American government that protects peoples’ fundamental rights. Many office-holders may not realize it. But they must take notice when we provide them with our societal status / capacity as the people who are not governed by them. In fact it is we who govern their function, meaning their lawful function. 

Most of the American people erroneously believe that their rights come from The Constitution of the United States. People even refer to their “constitutional rights”. Many people are angry about their rights being unconstitutionally taken or oppressed by governors and mayors per those officers’ policing policies concerning the COVID-19 virus situation. People reference the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, which is a part of that Constitution when it was ratified in 1789. But what people don’t realize is that only some of those rights pertain to them, as allowable rights, because they lack the knowledge about why that is so. The reason for the confusion is that people aren’t utilizing their own authority to self-govern their private property, which consists of their God-created physical body, ability to reason, verbal and written expressions, use of land as a home or to pursue trade with other people, and their movement of body and physical possessions via their private automobile or other private conveyance. The regulation of such peoples’ property is instead per the authority that people mostly unknowingly grant to legislators, governors and the courts’ presiding officers. 

Several generations of Americans have lacked knowledge about the true history of our unique form of intentional government –- “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people” (as famously spoken by President Abraham Lincoln in his enduring speech given at Gettysburg). Those three social positions that people should themselves be diligently occupying are the three positions that pertain to a Trust. A Trust is a binding arrangement established by a Trustor, who can also be called a Settlor or Grantor, who authorizes a Trustee to act for the Trustor in regard to a benefit –- being something that belongs to the Trustor –- that the Trustor desires the Trustee to provide to a designated Beneficiary in accordance with the Trustor’s directions. In the American form of government, each of the people occupies the position of Grantor of his/her own authority originating from the Creator, who creates everyone with endowed ability to form free-will choices based on observation, inquiry, discussion and reason. That is what government “of the people” means. Each of the people can also occupy the position of Trustee, or servant who performs a duty delegated by the people. That is what “by the people” means. And in our “Republican” form of government, the same people are also the Beneficiaries of this societal Trust. The object or benefit of the Trust is expressed within our founding Trust document, the 1776 Declaration of Independence –- the mutual securing of certain God-endowed unalienable “Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The Bill of Rights, being the ten Amendments included in the federal Constitution, state these rights in more detail. But the final two Amendments secure the rights retained by the people that are not specifically enumerated in the first eight Amendments, and also secure the people’s reserved power to take action to prevent the destruction of the original intent of the governmental Trust. These final two Amendments directly link to the Declaration of Independence and the primary principle enshrined there, as expressed by John Quincy Adams [son of signer John Adams] in his July 4th 1821 address commemorating the 45th anniversary of the signing of that Declaration as the delegates’ first act of sovereignty on behalf of the people of the free and independent states: “In the theories of the crown and mitre [Pope], man had no rights … Neither the body nor the soul of the individual was his own”, and he contrasted that with the premise of the Declaration, being “the self-evident principle that man has a right to the exercise of his own reason.” The original states organized their governments, all in republican / ministerial forms, all on the principles of the Declaration. They then formed a confederation pertaining to interrelations between the States from the premise of pertetual friendship, and a Federal Government per the federal constitution that would provide the Union of States with certain services as the international operation of the organic governmental Trust structure. 

We hosts of this site offer the documented evidence proving that the Congress recognizes that the four founding documents (Decl of Indep, Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, and federal Constitution) are sequential Laws, termed by the Congress as: “The Organic Laws of the United States of America”. Our readers who desire to obtain this historic proof may email us for a copy (see our Introduction for that contact information). The fact of the Congress’s term for those Laws can be found online as the front matter of the United States Code. All of these Laws are current, none having ever been repealed. The federal constitution was a needful amendment to the Articles of Confederation, so that the Congress could function without constant amendments being made to the AoC. 

The breach of this structured government occurred due to the secretive infiltration by foreign bankers, whose activities included fomenting the Civil War and preventing civilian governments from being reconstructed by the American people afterward. The bankers gained a lasting foothold of behind-the-scenes control over the people when the Congress passed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. During the Great Depression, which the bankers caused in order to begin instituting a socialist / communist form of government, the bankers’ first move was to entice the people into accepting guardianship benefits. The post Civil War Congress –- being not the American peoples’ Congress –- passed the 1921 Maternity Act that would provide prenatal care to poor women. That was the first venture of the banker-controlled Federal Government into social security legislation in conjunction with banker-controlled State-level departments of health to advise how to use the funding. Notice that the health departments are this day still exerting governing powers over people. The 1935 Banking Act amended the Federal Reserve Act, establishing the Federal Reserve System, being in every respect a new governmental Trust. The 14th Amendment to the federal constitution was utilized by the bankers as the basis of that socialist Trust. Their banking scheme would entice people into energizing the commerce-based capacity of a ‘member bank’ per an individual Trust account established for that purpose. The bankers financially benefited and the scheme produced the funding of their socialist form of government with the aid of legislators acting as the participating peoples’ law-makers. The court system was designed to control the process of energy-confiscation. Beginning back in 1851, the bankers’ stealth-control of the Congress caused passage of the Limited Liability Act, bringing the rules of Admiralty Law onto the land as Maritime Law, revised in 1884 to include that a corporation is a natural person via the 14th Amendment; the court system typically operates Maritime Law codes instituted as administrative process. Per the bankers’ secular Birth registration scheme creating the necessary individual Trust accounts, people have been enticed into moving their energy from the status of one who operates a corporation; peoples’ use of banker-controlled Federal Reserve Notes causes people to become “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (as stated in the 14th Amendment). The legal problem for the bankers with this scheme’s operation is that the Fed Act’s Section 16 secures the sovereign people’s right of choosing to be redeemed from central banking, thereby being NOT subject to a commerce-based governmental jurisdiction (such as the STATE OF MICHIGAN, for instance) and conjunctive energy-policing jurisdiction (the State of Michigan). In Part Three of this initial post, we present more details about United States Notes as the “lawful money” referenced in Section 16 of the Fed Act. 

The full significance of the Federal Reserve Act and System can be best comprehended from the synopsis of pertinent history that we offer to those of you Readers who are serious about living as one of the sovereign people and performing your governmental duty where you live. Our synopsis details the critical distinction between Michigan (for example) and the State of Michigan and the STATE OF MICHIGAN. Email us for obtaining receipt of that, and tell us a little about you. 

When one acts as a State National (of Michigan, for instance), the entire Bill of Rights and the preceding Organic Laws protect one’s private interests. When one also operates a civilian government, the duty of the federal Commander-in-Chief of the military is activated to cause protection of that government in accordance with the founding Trust structure. Such an officer currently occupies that honorable role, and he is also acting to end the breach of the founding Trust structure being committed by officers within the federal government. We sovereign people are ending the breach at the State of State level. Officers of the State of Michigan (for instance) ought to be only acting to protect us State Nationals from the unscrupulous desires of officers of interstate corporations, and to regulate the conduct of civil servants and of those people who are not conducting themselves in accordance with the republican form of government and the Laws of Nature’s God.

UPDATE: Our History Sections A and B can now be accessed from the sidebar.

Sunday, September 6, 2020

The current court system is established to serve a specific societal status of people, but court officials must also serve those of us who do not operate that status – Part One: Overview

The courts today are operating outside the original delegation of authority derived from the American people as set forth within the Federal Constitution and the original constitution of a State in the Union. The original delegation of power is reliant on the peoples’ authority being derived from Creator God, exercised in accordance with the benevolent Laws of Nature’s God as the supreme Law of the Land. Per the Declaration of Independence, a new societal Trust was declared forth, which we explain in Part Two of this post. The current courts are instead operating in accordance with the man-created rules of commerce applicable within the Federal Reserve System, operated like a Trust, established after passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act; this fact is of the utmost significance for people who seek to obtain justice from a court officer. Officers acting for the court system (such as law enforcement officers) and in the courtrooms (such as prosecutors, attorneys, and judges) are doing so under the presumption that all people socially act within the Federal Reserve System. 

The Federal Reserve Act, at its Section 16, presents the definite and simple means that the Congress left for singular people to express their retained right to move their interests in accordance with the organic Trust, protected by the Federal Constitution and its inclusive Bill of Rights. That Constitution is the fourth law document comprising the American governing Trust established under God. The other three sequential originating and still-current laws are the Decl. of Indep., the Articles of Confederation (detailing how States interact with other States), and the Northwest Ordinance (detailing how people forming a new State could acquire that State’s admission into the original Union of States). Section 16 of the Fed Act, codified as Title 12 of the U.S. Code at Section 411, provides that people can choose to make exchanges with other people with use of national money, public money termed “lawful money”, instead of choosing to utilize the private currency (Federal Reserve Notes) controlled by Federal Reserve bankers. Money, or currency, represents human-energy. One expresses one's demand to handle lawful money by writing on the back of a banking instrument (such as a check) "Redeemed for lawful money, per 12 USC 411", adding one's name under that, instead of just signing the instrument under the pre-printed word ENDORSEMENT found there. The absence of one's demand indicates that one is not redeeming the face-value showing on the instrument.  

For the benefit of people who do not realize it, the Federal Reserve is not a federal agency. It’s a private, mostly foreign-owned corporation, operating under international maritime law –- admiralty law (that governs a ship’s cargo) brought on land –- because banking law is Maritime Administrative Law. The Fed acts in conjunction with other organizations of ‘central bankers’, who deem themselves the qualified controllers of global commerce acting to regulate how much currency to circulate at any time under the premise that their expertise, and private credit from which they internally operate their scheme, benefits the people of participating nations. Nations have been borrowing currency from central bankers, with interest attached, instead of issuing their own usury-free national money and entering into separate nation-to-nation trade agreements. There has been much evil perpetrated by central bankers; some leaders of nations have been forced into participating or else face a coup, central bankers have caused intentional economic busts and booms, and they have even deceptively fomented wars to force nations to borrow more currency to fund aggression or to defend against it. But for the purpose of this website, what there is to know is that the American people have the secured right to not endorse –- not place their trust in –- the bankers’ debt-based scheme. If people exchange their energy from without the Fed system, then people are not subject to its Maritime Administrative Law, which is sometimes referred to as the law merchant, because such people do not act in the role of an individual ‘member bank’ of the Fed. 

By choosing to not endorse the bankers’ private credit as the medium for one to express one’s energy, one is self-freed –- redeemed –- from a correlated Lien against one’s energy (subjecting peoples' energy / conduct to regulations) and against one’s possessions acquired with the Fed’s currency. We provide detail about this in the other parts to this post. 

The court system’s officials only act to administer the Lien. The Lien is the “thing” we identify in this site’s Introduction. It’s the contract underlying the authority for a person, sometimes being a prosecutor, to begin a court case. The Lien is what causes one to have presence in the State of Michigan (or other State of State), because “the State of Michigan” is a corporation within the Federal Reserve System; it uses Fed currency. The corporate State is not the same societal form of government as “Michigan”, the State in the national Union. This distinction is detailed in Part Two of this post. Pertaining to some of our Readers, people who are recording a Notice document as the means to present that they operate the political status of “State National” of a Union State, as the basis for overcoming a corporate officer’s presumption that they have voluntary domicile in a State of State, may not have first ceased being voluntarily present in a State of State / the Federal Reserve System due to their continued endorsement of the Fed’s private credit. We hosts of this site offer, as proof of the importance of domicile and presence, Michigan Court Rule 2.105 (J)(1) and (2) that concerns the court’s jurisdiction over a defendant, or individual. That Rule says jurisdiction is governed by “the United States Constitution [which protects people who actually are State Nationals] and the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan”, citing Michigan Compiled Law 600.701 that presents the fact that either domicile or presence in the State confers jurisdiction over an individual. The second part of that Court Rule states that there is “no territorial limitation on the range of process issued by a court”. The word “territorial” means within any State of State, because all corporate States are within the Federal Reserve System, which operates from the District of Columbia since the Fed Act was a contract with the bankers entered into by the Congress. 

Thus, an “action” or “complaint” that starts a court case is just a transaction pertaining to a claimed right or unmet obligation existing due to the Lien on human-energy concerning those people who trust within the Federal Reserve System of societal engagement. The Lien is why the only plea against a criminal charge [note that “charge” is an energy term] is “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” of the particulars, and can’t be “Innocent” (i.e. not a party to the transaction); the first court proceeding is conducted by a Lien administrator / judge who must obtain from the accused his/her “understanding” of the charge, and by admitting understanding the accused thereby also admits he/she trusts within the Federal Reserve System. The judge can take silent notice of an individual’s domicile [indicated per the individual’s street address on a court document] or presence in the State of State. In a non-criminal case, the party who “appears” or appears via an attorney automatically effectuates such admission, because attorneys only represent societal interests that exist in commerce. People who so interact with the court system do it via an individualized commerce-based account established for that purpose (for the transfer of money, or energy via some ordered act, as settlement of the case), which account resembles their given and family name but is spelled in all capitalized letters. That creation is explained in Part Two of this post. When a judge opens a court session by asking if the body standing in the courtroom is ‘so-and-so’, the judge is referring to that account name, seeking the individual’s agreement that he/she is associated with that name in the capacity of moving his/her societal interests via that account. Those of us people who are without domicile or presence in the Federal Reserve System have the constitutionally-protected temporary peace-keeping pass-through use of such account [per the Congress], instead of moving from within it, for our need to present truth to a corporate officer in relation to another party who does act via such account (which party could be THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ______ ). The judge-administrator can utilize our pass-through use to make connection with the other party’s account, since that administrator is tasked to bring the case to settlement. So if there are not at least two actual parties to the underlying action or complaint, no case can exist under the pertaining Maritime Administrative Law. Furthermore, that judge is bound to acknowledge “the supreme Law of the Land” referred to within the Federal Constitution at its concluding Article VI, which governs the original and still-current societal Trust under which we State Nationals exclusively move per our birthright or our lawful naturalization. We are due justice in accordance with the Creator’s Law (via a human’s inner knowing of right from wrong), whether accessing the court to convey that we have been wrongly-identified as a defendant of a commerce-based transaction to which we are not a party, or as a plaintiff requiring relief from someone’s violation of our fundamental rights or our documented societal interests.

Note: The references to America's history in this post, obtainable by emailing us, are now provided as "History Section A" and "History Section B" found on the sidebar of this site.