Thread: Justices eye suit on Obama citizenship

Originally Posted by florgal

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by florgal

IF you or I were in this situation, WE would have to show our birth certificate and prove we were born in the U.S. I don't know what makes him think he's any better than the rest of us.

He has already shown it to the federal election officials and they said that it proves he is a citizen. He is under no obligation to anything else.

My understanding is that he or someone from his campaign provided, via a far left website, a document stating he had been born. NOT unquestionable proof that he was born in Hawaii. Oh, and did I mention that a documents expert claims even that was a fake?

I don't KNOW all the facts. What I do know is that if he had any balls he would put this to rest once and for all. Provide the actual document, if it exists, the long version, the real thing. Answer to the facts that HAVE BEEN PRESENTED as to his Indonesian citizenship during the time he attended school there, did he regain his U.S. citizenship after that, and just HOW was he able to travel to parts of the Middle East during a time which Americans were not allowed to do so. What's so hard about that? He needs to provide real answers, real proof to the people on this matter.

No matter what he, or anyone else, ever provides people like you will never be satisfies. You will claim that some "expert" says it is fake. There is therefore no way to solve this. If a court rules that he is a citizen you will claim that he bought them off.

Who are your so called document experts, what did the examine, when, where, what are their credentials?

I don't support Obama in any way. I just think all of this is nonsense.

Will the Supreme Court let us know something on Friday, Dec. 5, 2008, or will it wait until next week to tell us its decision? Thanks.

Hey, YOU posted the story. But you're right about one thing - I will never be satisfied until this country has a leader that actually gives a rat's behind about Americans, American interests, American sovereignty, American security, and the United States Constitution. I do not believe Barack Obama is that leader nor do I believe John McCain would have been that leader.

"I" don't have a documents expert, and don't remember the name though I'm sure the article containing the identity of the forensics document expert who 'claimed' the Obama BC to be a fake is somewhere within the Alipac archives. You can find it just a good as I can. The birth certificate is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE surrounding our newly elected president's eligibility to hold the office of POTUS. There is still that little issue of his Indonesian citizenship during his early years and IF he regained his U.S. citizenship. Only one question among many. Should we be good little citizens and just take someone's word that he is or isn't? Have we, as a nation, EVER been faced with the prospect, any tiny sliver of doubt, as to the eligibility of a leader to hold this office? None that I can remember, until now.

I have accepted that Barack Obama will be our president as of Jan 20th. I hold no expectations that ANYTHING will change that fact. However, there are a lot of "people like me" who want some answers, and not just from Barack Obama. We're tired of being dismissed and ridiculed because we aren't politically correct little sheeple.

"Hey, YOU posted the story"


I didn't say I believed one word of the story. I just found it in the paper and posted it.

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Legal experts say the appeal holds little chance for success

How do they Figure? If they just look at Obama's actions alone you can tell he is hiding something!

Obama is the point man picked by the CFR and the Trilateral Commission to head up the final phase of the dismantlization of the United States and to usher in the north American union. They ARE NOT about to disqualify him. But if they did, riots big time would ensue and martial law would go in effect..leading us to the end of our Constitution and then the new world order will follow..NAU, NWO, all the same thing. The bankers have already stolen 8.8 trillion dollars and the last pickings are for the rest of the banks and corporations..after that, a depression so bad that all of us will welcome the Amero as a solution that the Obama administration will end up proposing to us and implementing whether we like it or not.

Obama, for the globalists is a win win situation. His disqualification is almost moot.

All is lost then, what do I fight for if it is already laid out and imminent?

Hey 93camero! Give this a read, and you may understand what you are fighting for.

Happy Fourth of July!
This is one of my favorite holidays. Historically we get together with family and have a reunion centered around a picnic, watermelon, and fireworks.

What did you do? Did you have a picnic with family? Did you go out and watch a fireworks display, or shoot off your own traditional fireworks?

Our family enjoys fireworks.

Yet, sometimes I wonder, what are we celebrating?

Are we celebrating war by shooting off beautiful explosions of light, sound, and smoke reminiscent of "bombshells bursting in air".

Are we celebrating Independence from England.

Or, have we forgotten what we're celebrating, so we just celebrate for the sake of the celebration.

On the Fourth of July, 1776, the 13 independent States of North America united in a Congress, through their plenipotentiary delegates and signed the Declaration of Independence. As separate States, united in their cause for freedom from tyranny, they went to war as a nation. For the first time these unbound States stood together to fight a war, without a single document to bind them as a nation. They had together declared their Independence.

But what did it mean? What does it mean now? - Independence.

Great Britain thought of this nation as one of their colonies for hundreds of years and in that time it grew to become one of their most productive assets.

Though the people and the States were self governed, recognizing that they were independent sovereign Land owners with the Magna Carta and their Land Patents securing their rights, Great Britain controlled them under merchandising contracts and progressively violated their rights until the people would take no more.

It became necessary to stop England's abuse of the colonist's rights so ultimately the Declaration of Independence was drafted.

In response the King of England doubled the sales tax to the colonies from 3% to 6%. Rather than paying the increased tax some of the colonists had a party and threw a load of tea into the harbor (the Boston Tea Party).

The colonists went to war over - the last straw - a sales tax hike on tea.

To get into this history and understand what it was like to be a alive then read Prelude to Glory, by Ron Carter. This 8 volume historical novel brings our history to life. Your passion for our nation will awaken with understanding while you follow these people from the first signs of war through the setting of the Constitution. Valley Forge and many other landmarks of these incredible patriots come to life and finally you will awaken to your rights and what it took to secure them.

From March 1, 1781, to June 21, 1788, The Articles of Confederation were in force as the first constitution of The United States of America.

When the War was over they formed a new nation with a foundational document, The Articles of Confederation, that document recognized this nation as a nation made up of independent sovereign united States, and gave the name to the new nation as: "The United States of America".

Many of the people of this new nation felt that it was wrong to leave England. Sure there were rights violations but those were livable and their future was a certainty as an English Colony. Now that they were on their own nothing at all was sure.

Over the next ten years conditions in this country continually got worse. The individual States gave little regard to any other State and paid nearly no attention at all to the central government. After ten years of independence from England conditions were far worse than they had ever been under England's rule and protection. Many wanted government officials to go back to England and beg the King to take us back, and they almost did. Again, in the Prelude to Glory: Vol. 7: The Impending Storm you'll discover the starvation and destitution the Articles of Confederation left our country in after the war and the necessity of our Constitution to save the nation. It was incredible!

"To form a more perfect Union"
Allowing Great Britain to retake the nation was considered too severe without first attempting to resolve the problems of this new nation by getting the States to sit down and work out the problems with the Articles of Confederation. That meeting was finally arranged and each of the Sovereign States gave authority to a few men, Deputies, to sit in convention, and review the present form of government as set in the Articles so as to eliminate its limitations, give sufficient power to the central government to function while still preserving the liberty of the People and autonomy of the States. A Trust trust indenture was formed, it simply began as follows:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Continuing with VII Articles and concluding with the signatures of the representative of the twelve States present at the convention. Once agreed to and signed by the individual State's representatives at the convention, the Trust was formed.

The Trust indenture, with the intent and authority of the people created a "Constitutional Republic" form of government in trust.

Though the document had no header its leading paragraph named it this: " Constitution for the United States of America".

On, September 17th, 1787, it was resolved by the Convention to take the Trust to the individual States for ratification.

The States conditionally turned the Trust down because it removed their sovereignty and didn't secure man's God given inherent rights, without which the States would not give up their sovereignty to support the Constitution.

Remember, these individual States were recognized as individual Sovereign States in the Articles of Confederation. That was the principle error with the Articles of Confederation; there was no accountability or control over the individual States—there was no unity. Without accountability whoever was in power simply ignored the central government and moved forward however they saw fit, in violation of individual rights, or not, literally however they saw fit. In essence, they were each literally absolutely powerful kingdoms.

It was obvious that if something wasn't done to unite the States with a more perfect Union they would be destroyed from within or without. So when offered the Constitutional Republic, the individual sovereign States leaders could see they would no longer be sovereign if they accepted it—but they would be destroyed if they didn't.

Not much of a choice, but the war with England ended only a little over ten years earlier and they couldn't go back, so they demanded that if they were to give up their sovereignty, the people's rights must be preserved from the central government. Thus they conditionally refused the Trust until the "Bill of Rights" were added.

Therefore, the Constitution was first created to form a Trust commonly known as the government of The United States of America. Government officials were set up within the Trust as Trustees with specific defined responsibilities and functions.

The People were made beneficiaries of the Trust and when any government official takes office he or she is required to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance [make a contract with the people to uphold the Constitution].

Remember, at this point the government was already created in trust, by the signed Constitution and George Washington was already positioned as its President, yet the Trust had nobody sitting in the other offices of government and the States were not willing to support it (give up their sovereignty) and authorize its officers to function with control over them unless the people's rights and the State's rights were secured.

The Deputies reconvened as the First Constitutional Convention and went back to work to draft the requested, Bill of Rights, which were later provided as the First Twelve Amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America (only ten were ratified), a document that was created to bind officers in an Oath to uphold the Trust of the people and secure the peoples rights.

Then The Constitution for the United States of America (still signed and unchanged from its original version as first presented to the states), along with the "Bill of Rights" as the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America, were returned to the individual States and were ratified by each of those States and returned to the Constitutional Convention where the new government was made fully effective and put in operation on or after, December 15th, 1791, the "Effective date" of The Constitution of the United States of America.

Now let's go back and again review the documents created in the process by name. (Names are about to become very important when we go to the next step and begin to follow the money.)

Here's what happened step by step:
First: There was the Trust, named within its own first paragraph as this, "Constitution for the United States of America". Remember this document is a Trust indenture; it created a Trust called "the government of The United States of America. This document was accepted and signed by all of the Deputies. The signed Constitution created the government and under the capacity therein granted to Senators the Delegates seated George Washington as President of that government.

Second: The Trust was sent out for ratification of the individual States (because they had not yet agreed to give up their sovereignty).

Third: The individual States conditionally declined requiring a Bill of Rights limitation on the Constitution to make it acceptable.

Fourth: The First Constitutional Convention sat and generated the Bill of Rights (a set of supreme laws that limit government). The wording of the Bill recognized it as "Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America"; presupposing that the Constitution already existed as set. Note: they did not regenerate the Constitution; it was already signed and accepted by each of the State's representatives and the Constitutional Republic was already in force; they simply added the Bill of Rights so the Republic would forever remain of, by, and for the people.

Fifth: The individual States were given the original Constitution with the attached "Bill of Rights" under the name "Constitution of the United States of America and all of the States accepted and ratified the documents.

Sixth: With the ratification of the Trust and its "Bill of Rights", the government was accepted as formed, in trust, yet still, other than George Washington, there were no officers in the seats of the government. [It's very important for us to notice this status of the government.**]

Seventh: The Constitutional Convention again sat to perform their final acts as the Creator of the Trust. They appointed officials to sit in the primary seats of the newly formed Constitutional Republic and to so serve until an election could be held.

Eighth: Those officials now appointed could not take office until they each individually first swore an Oath of Office stating they would uphold the,
Constitution of the United States of America. Again it is very important to notice the name used in the Bill or Rights and now used for this "contract" with the officers and agencies serving under Oath to obey and uphold the: Constitution of the United States of America, not, "for ", but "of ".

Note: It's important to note here that we are indeed talking about two different documents. The First, the, Constitution for the United States of America, is a Trust and the Second, the, Constitution of the United States of America, is a contract between the officers of government and the beneficiaries of the Trust.

After the Constitution was in place, and elections were held ratifying George Washington as President things went fairly well until the Civil War.

In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law and ordered that the States either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as and enemy of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today—what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This martial law authority is still in effect to this day and this Act was the foundation of today's Presidential Executive Orders.

By 1868 the war was over and the government had a gigantic problem. Until that time Congressmen were equally, collectively and severably liable for any official acts they performed outside of their constitutional limitations. It was much like a General Partnership. In the wake of the war martial law was necessarily enforced in the South and carpetbaggers were sent down to "help adjust property ownership problems" after the war. Many great atrocities were committed making the vulnerability to lawsuit unbearable. It was considered that, in the interest of better handling the business interests and needs of government, the government should form a corporation, because from the protection of such a corporation they could continue to do what they felt was necessary to reunite the Union. To accomplish this, under the Constitution's allowance for Congress to pass (and enforce) any law within the 10 mile square of Washington, D.C., they passed The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (Chapter 62, 16 Statutes at Large, 419).

Corp. USA
Under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, "The District of Columbia", was formed. It trademarked the names "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America". It should be noted that this corporation was not simply a reformation of the municipality as it's Organic Act was chartered in 1808. Without amending that municipality's charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, "The District of Columbia" (hereinafter "Corp. U.S.") owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia. In said, Act Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national Constitution’s 13th Article of Amendment and the national Constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in their constitution.


Corp. U.S. was not well received by the people so Congress revised the Act in 1874 and finalized it in 1878.

Corp. U.S. began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. By 1912 there was more bond debt due than there was money in the Treasury to pay and the debt was called.

Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn't come up with the money due, its owner (the actual government) was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either but the seven families accepted all of the assets of the nation's Treasury along with all of the assets of Corp. U.S'. Treasury as a settlement of the debt saving the nation from bankruptcy.

By 1913 there was still no money for operating the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn't do something the people would revolt against them, so Corp. U.S. went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them.

The Federal Reserve Bank
The heads of those families refused to loan Corp. U.S. any money because Corp. U.S. had already proven that it would not pay its debts back in full. They did however make arrangements and provisions to issue notes (Federal Reserve Notes) like letters of credit while they secured the notes for redemption with real money. On Jekyll Island in 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank privately agreed to so fund Corp. U.S. in their endeavors. Such an action would have been a gigantic violation of law if the government tried such a thing, but there is no law against private corporations making such arrangements.

The real problem is in the name. How does one tell the difference between a corporation going by the name, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", and the government of the Unites States of America?

What's worse, how do you tell the difference between the "United States" [a Trust and the body of government that represents the Trust, as Trustees], and the "United States" a trademark name for, "The District of Columbia" [a private corporation]?

The answer is simple, you can't unless you can tell by the context of what's being done.

The problem gets even larger when you take into consideration the fact that the officers of government are also the officers of the corporation. They were simultaneously appointed or elected into their offices, both in the corporation and in the government at the same time. In virtually every way the name of their offices and their responsibilities as corporate officials and as government officers were coincidental between 1871 and 1913.

There was no conflict in interest because the Corp. U.S'. purpose was to fulfill the business needs of the actual government.

I'm not going to here go into all of the details and ramifications of the arrangements between Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank. The simple fact is: Where the government couldn't lawfully be involved with the Federal Reserve Bank, the corporation can be.

Vacating the seats of Government
Under all of the media coverage of the Federal Reserve Bank Act, Corp. U.S. passes and adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th Amendment. Remember, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th Article of Amendment as of 1870. The Supreme Court ruled that Corp. U.S'. 16th Amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were obviously created only under the authority of Corp. U.S. Two months later Corp. U.S'. Congress entered their 17th Amendment as ratified. Again in the corporate ratification pattern of the Corp. U.S. 16th amendment was followed with actual State ratification. This amendment is not even constitutional; the Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected. For our national Congress to pass such an Amendment they would first have to Amend the Constitution to allow their discussion of the matter. Either way the result is that in Corp. U.S. their corporate officials known as Senators would thereafter be elected by a popular vote of their contracted voting public, while in the actual government (hereinafter "original jurisdiction government") Senators would continue to be appointed by the State's Legislature or by the State's Governor. In other words, the Corp. U.S. seats and the original jurisdiction government seats would not thereafter be seated by the same individual.

In 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote are seated in Corp. U.S. capacity only and the original jurisdiction Senate seat was vacated, because the States failed to appoint new Senators (after all no law compels them to).

In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W.I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.

In 1918, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers.

In 1933, Corp. U.S. went bankrupt and the States agreed to support their resolution. In keeping with the bankruptcy, the Corp. U.S. Congress adjusted their Trading with the Enemies Act with their Emergency War Powers Act, which recognized the people of the United States of America are enemies of Corp. U.S.


No Elections since 1913
Therefore there was no election of officers of the government of the United States of America. And all of America was none the wiser. The government was still there and the Constitution was still alive and well and living in Washington, D.C. but once again** there was nobody sitting in the seats of the officers of government; just like it was when the founding fathers signed the Constitution but the States had not ratified it, the government existed but no one was seated in office.

There hasn't been an Election since, and there won't be one until America once again wakes up.

This is fantastic, I know, but look at the facts! This is the only solution that makes sense and fits the facts.

The U.N., IMF, & World Bank
So we jump from 1913 and the setting of the Federal Reserve Bank as the financier of Corp. U.S. to 1944 and W.W.II. The war was continuing and the United States was not fairing too well until the formation of The Bretton Woods Agreements and their new players—"The International Monetary Fund" (a.k.a. the "Fund", hereinafter "IMF"), and "The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development" (a.k.a. the "Bank", hereinafter "World Bank"). Make sure you're sitting down for this one.

The United States Code (USC) Title 22 § 286 reads:


"§ 286. Acceptance of membership by the United States in International Monetary Fund.
"The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. (July 31, 1945, ch. 339, § 2, 59 Stat. 512.) Short titles: . May be cited as the 'Bretton Woods Agreements Act'.
"Other provisions:
Par value modification. For the Congressional direction that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the value in terms of gold of the Inter-American Development Bank's holdings of United States dollars following the establishment of a par value of the dollar at $38 for a fine troy ounce of gold pursuant to the Par Value Modification Act and for the authorization of the appropriations necessary to provide such maintenance of value, see 31 USC § 449a." (accents in red added).

[It should be noted that recently, to cover-up the Bretton Woods Agreements (hereinafter "BWA") control and the quitclaim of the United States Government to the IMF, the United States Congress abolished the references in the USC referring to the BWA. Other than removing such references that abolishment had no effect on the BWA.]

The Quit Claim Deed
The agreement further transfers the assets of the United States Treasury to the IMF by stating words to the effect of: 'the United States Treasury is now the Individual Drawing account of the IMF'.

Think about it.
"The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the the IMF"

The President is authorized by whom? By Congress? No. According to the Act the authorization came from, "the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944", a.k.a. The Bretton Woods Agreement's final act.

Even if Congress could have authorized such a thing, where would they get the authority to so do? Certainly not from the Constitution, and Congress can't lawfully do anything the Constitution doesn't authorize them to do. Even under the President's dictatorial authority of martial law, the President cannot lawfully do anything not authorized in the Constitution.

The Constitution plainly states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ninth amendment; and, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment

Further this joining in the IMF is obviously an international agreement; and, any good dictionary will define, "an agreement between nations" as a, "Treaty". The constitution is very specific on how treaties are to be engaged in with this nation — First, the President signs the treaty; and Second, the Senate ratifies his signature with a two-thirds majority vote. That didn't happen here.

So if the right wasn't given in the Constitution, Congress can't take it and give it to the President. This act itself states that the alleged authorization came from the "Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference" instead of from Congress.

Now, hold on a second here. There are too many things going on here that can't be. Too many conflicts. Even in a corrupt government they'd never get away with it.

I was watching Star Trek one time when Spock explained a logical solution to an identity problem like this, 'When you examine the solutions and you discover what cannot be, the solution can only be whatever is left.'

That's the problem here, in Law, it cannot be what it seems to be, yet it is. The United States of America cannot be a member in the IMF, and the Treasury of the United States of America cannot be turned over to a foreign bank's control. The only thing left is they must be talking about Corp. U.S. which was quit claimed to the IMF under the Bretton Woods Agreement as a settlement of W.W.II; that makes Corp. U.S. a private foreign corporation. We can find nothing that says a corporation cannot quit claim itself to another owner, foreign or otherwise.

Now think about it. And, this time instead of thinking the government did it [because they couldn't have], think about Corp. U.S. OK. In that case where it says, "The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States", "United States" as used here can only mean be the trademark name for the corporation known as, "The District of Columbia" in other words the corporation formed in 1871, and not the government.

Want further confirmation? OK. In the "Other provisions:" section it talks about, "the Secretary of Treasury", which is an officer of the corporation only. That position does not exist in the national government. The relatively equivalent position in national government is, "the Treasurer of the United States of America" and that seat was vacated by an Act of Congress in 1920.

As a matter of fact when you review the whole document, Title 22 § 286, and the underlying "Bretton Woods Agreement", you'll find these elements.

One — Corp. U.S'. signs the Bretton Woods Agreements (treaty) and Congress gives Title 22 § 286 the short title of Bretton Woods Agreement Act.

Two — In said Agreement, Congress Grants to the IMF the "United States Treasury" as, "The individual drawing account" for the IMF.

Three — "The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall serve as a governor of the Bank" USC 22 § 286a.

The person the President chose as Governor of the World Bank and IMF is Corp. U.S'. Secretary of the Treasury.

The elements of a Quit Claim Deed are: there must be a Grantor, a Grantee, and some thing, asset or right must be granted.

In this case the thing being granted is a corporation known as, "The District of Columbia", trademark names, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, United States, U.S., USA, America, etc.; its assets are its Treasury (The United States Treasury), and its purpose is to carry out the business needs of the national government of United States of America. Up until the Bretton Woods Agreement, the owner of Corp. U.S. was the United States of America, the actual government; thereafter it was the IMF. The Treasury of the corporation was granted by Grantor, the government of the United States of America (Congress and the President) to the Grantee, the IMF.

Therefore USC Title 22 § 286 exemplifies the Quit Claim Deed of Corp. U.S. from The United States of America to the IMF, which is owned and controlled by the Great Britain's Bank of International Settlements. Up to the point of the quit claim deed, there was allegedly no conflict in interests between Corp. U.S. and its owner the national government of the United States of America, but after the quit claim deed, with the new owner being foreign and having foreign interests, there is a gigantic conflict in interests.

Upon review of these actions, as Spock would say, that is the only solution left when you remove all other options.

The States join Corp. U.S.
Starting around 1962 and continuing through 1968. Corp. U.S. went to the States and pointed out to them that their own constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or foreign loans, foreign bonds, etc., and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve Notes. They were warned that if the people became aware of this they could imagine a scene similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the Lords held a sword to the King's head and said sign or we'll get a new king.

The king signed, as did the States. One by one, they organized private corporations as sub-corps. to Corp. U.S.

For example, Colorado rewrote Colorado's Constitution, revised their Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and enacted CRS Title 24 as the "Administrative Organization Act of 1968" restructuring its laws in 1968. Said Title 24 is the new corporate charter for, "THE STATE OF COLORADO" which is Corp. U.S. possession.

By 1972 every State in the Union had done the same thing.

The California Republic, formed "THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA"; The Republic of Texas formed "THE STATE OF TEXAS"; The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, formed "THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA"; and so it went, until each and every State had formed a private corporation of a name like "THE STATE OF _______", where the blank is a common name for the State. As people registered to vote with these corporations they participated in their elections of corporate officials and bonded debts; they also stopped electing original jurisdiction State government officials, thus unknowingly vacating their actual State governments.

Where Are You, Do You Know?
Like a ship at sea, in order to plot a course, you need to know: who you are, where you are, where you're going and which way the wind is going (what the enemy is doing).

Who are you?

Answer: According to Foundational Law in the United States of America, that being recognized as the King James Version of the Bible (see Public Law 97-280), God created man in His own image, giving man dominion, agency and possession (sovereignty) and a commandment to multiply, replenish and subdue the earth (stewardship). With a promise that if we will obey this commandment and remain not of this world then shall we receive our inheritance in His Kingdom. This is a start from foundational law. Should we accept that stewardship, we also have direction in taking responsibility for our stewardship.

Where are you?

Answer: You're living in a nation where the chosen form of government is a Constitutional Republic, and where, historically, almost no elections of government officials have been held since 1913, and where a private foreign corporation is responsible for providing the business needs of the government under a direct conflict of interest, which government again is alive and well and living in Washington, D.C.— there just are no officers of government sitting in the seats the Constitution provides. It will serve you well to remember that Corp. U.S. has declared war against the people of this nation.

Where are you going?

Answer: Considering the fact that you are at war, you only have two choices on where to go. You must decide whose side you're on. Are you on the side of Liberty, Independence, and the Creator, or are you on the side of the private foreign corporation that has declared that you are its enemy?

What is the Enemy doing?

Answer: The enemy is usurping control over the people, breaking up families ironically through the use of the Marriage License and "parens patria", public education, and the media (see "Family Ties", this issue). The enemy is usurping "Color of Law" land control over family farms, homes, and land under the guise of Taxes, the Endangered Species Act, and the Wetlands Act. That doesn't take into consideration all of the specious cases brought in courts against land owners. Under the Patriot Act they can call anyone a terrorist and hold them indefinitely without trial and under the Homeland Security Act they can do or take almost anything they want simply because they want to.

Example, in eviction cases in Colorado, the Sheriffs Offices never use warrants to gain access to the land, they use a "Color of Law" "Writ of Restitution" instead and then say they are breaking and entering in good faith on the specious authority of the court ordered writ.

The UN has set a World maximum population at One Billion people, current world population is near Six Billion. (United Nations Environment Program-UNEP, Global Biodiversity Assessment-GBA) The enemy is killing people, worldwide with biological warfare. The death toll is already over 300,000,000 people. In state aided abortions over 40,000,000 children have been murdered in the last ten years. Population growth rates are at .83% and need to be at 2.1% just to stay even.

The bottom line: if you look at all the people around you, your neighbors, your family, etc., for every six you see only one will survive the plans of this war, if the enemy has its way. The simple fact is that we are in trouble and if we do not awaken and fix the problem with our current trend our history will end.
So what can you do?

Time to Plot Your Course
First, recognize the war is real-before it's too late.

Second, notice their given name for this war is, "The Quiet War", that means that until recently their main weapon against us is the fact that this war didn't look like a war. They must create the appearance of proper government procedure in order to make this war work successfully. Most of their minions are ignorant of the existence of the war and are therefore ignorantly destroying our nations thinking they're helping their nation. Yet with the evidences over the past few years it is impossible to ignore it any longer.

Third, avoid taking any overt actions against the enemy until you're ready and then only take legal and lawful actions to compel Corp. U.S. and the State of "X" to obey the law. The most important thing is to start studying and spreading the word. Remember, Team Law was created to wake up and educate — use us.

In your studies:
1st—Discover what your stewardship is: family, land, etc.;
2nd—Discover the status of your stewardship: Marriage License, parens patria, no land patent, assets, asset protection, etc.;
3rd—Discover working solutions to your stewardship status problems, take no action yet;
4th—Notice who's on the enemy's front lines against you and yours - what agencies etc. (examples: IRS, County Assessor, Court, Social Services, non-Corp. USA enemy);
5th—Discover what the enemy's weapons of war are and how those weapons are used;
6th—Learn to disarm weapons before the enemy can use them.
7th—Prepare to take legal, lawful and legislative action.

Fourth, now that you're armed with knowledge, your ready to take action and mount the battle field. Where each situation is different, I can't here explain how I would act specifically but in each case the best plan of action would follow these battle plans:

1st—Know your enemy (see the 4th step above);
Example, If your front line enemy is IRS, they're a foreign Corporation, therefore any of their agents acting as officers of the United States without green cards are committing a felony etc.;

2nd—Disarm your enemy (see the 5th & 6th steps above);
Example, If the only thing IRS can do is seize your property if you don't pay, disarm them by paying.
Team Law can show you how to pay and not loose a cent;

3rd—Fight your enemy, by implementing your working solutions;
Results, IRS statistics show that when people pay first and then fight IRS, they win 998 cases out of 1000, when people fight paying they loose over 90% of the time;

4th—Follow through. If the enemy violates law, any law, hold them accountable;
Fact, most of the time the enemy has not educated their minions in truth or law therefore they're very vulnerable;

5th—Inform your neighbor;

6th—Endure through the end.

If you're not a Team Law beneficiary you should be. One way or another we've got to wake up America and reunite the "more perfect Union".

Independence Day
By now, you should know who and where you are. You should know we're at war with Corp. USA. And, like the founding fathers, we need to take a stand to regain Independence.

Unlike our founding fathers overt enemies, honorably willing to admit who they were, fighting out in the open-ours aren't. That can be to our advantage.

When we expose the enemy for who and what they really are, all America will awaken. Awaken and secure your Land by Patent. Start holding elections for President again. We'll have our nation back like the founding fathers set it, under the Constitution with all rights secure. It's up to you to wake your neighbors. God help us to wake up.

God bless you all.

http://teamlaw.net/history.htm

"Hey, YOU posted the story"

I only posted this so everyone would know that the court will decide on Fri. 12/5/08 if they will take it up or not.

Supreme Court justices will discuss challenge to Obama's citizenship Friday

Though it writes that the legal action has "little chance of succeeding," the Chicago Tribune notes that Supreme Court justices will sit down tomorrow to "take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship."

At issue is the contention of some Obama opponents that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that at one point as a child he gave up his citizenship. The arguments have been dismissed by lower courts and well as by Obama and his aides.

The nonpartisan FactCheck.org reported earlier this year that its researchers "have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."

Another nonpartisan fact-checking outfit, PolitiFact.com, reached the same conclusion.

Justice Clarence Thomas submitted the case, Donofrio v. Wells, for the court's consideration.

Posted by Mark Memmott at 01:58 PM/ET, December 04, 2008 in Election law

USA TODAY Online

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/

Supreme Court Not Considering Obama's Birth Certificate Case

By Michael Kraskin
Dec 5th 2008 8:48AM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Breaking News, Supreme Court

Today is the day that all the Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists--or "birthers," as they're known in some circles*--have been waiting for. Yes, at long last, it's Birth Certificate Day at the Supreme Court! Time for the highest court in the land to settle this dispute once and all.

Or so the "birthers" would like to believe.

They're a tad mistaken, though. That's because the authenticity question over of Obama's birthplace document has all ready been put to rest innumerable times.

No, the question before the court today is not whether Obama was born in the U.S., it's whether that birth makes him a natural born citizen. The argument brought by Leo Donofrio goes like this:

"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen 'at birth', just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens".

Got it? The argument is that even if he was born in the U.S., his daddy was an immigrant, so he can't be president. Donofrio in fact "concedes Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii."

Also, the Supreme Court isn't hearing the case, they are deciding whether to hear the case.

So, sorry birthers, no closure for you today. But hey, just for fun, here's a poll.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... cate-case/

December 5, 2008

Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

The Supreme Court made no announcement today whether or not it will hear Donofrio v. Wells, the lawsuit challenging the election based on Barack Obama's release - or alleged lack thereof - of his official birth certificate and his citizenship status. (The court did decide to hear two cases, one of which is the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, an Al Qaeda combatant seized on American soil.) Of course, there's no guarantee the Court will ever actually issue any statement on the Obama case since it was simply petitioned to the court and, along with hundreds of other cases, could be dismissed without any comment at all. But as Frank James, over at The Swamp, says, "the lack of an announcement doesn't mean the court definitely won't hear Donofrio." So either we will or we won't. Hmm.

Meanwhile, our comrades at our sister site DCist scoped out a protest held by supporters of the Donofrio cause at the Supreme Court this morning led by Roger Bredow, who claims Obama has duel citizenship.

The Supreme Court will announce whether it will actually consider the Obama lawsuit as early as today and as late as Monday. If (as expected) the Court tosses the suit, Bredow will start challenging Obama's legitimacy based on "foreign money that went into his campaign." Other protestors said they'd start contacting members of the Electoral College. Steve Brindle, who drove down from Pennsylvania, said he'd called his senators yesterday.

"There aren't a lot of people out here today," said Brindle. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."

Of course, only 15 to 20 people showed so...yeah.

Either way, nothing will ever outweigh the rage we felt this morning when we read that Obama has allegedly chosen a Zune over an iPod. We're whipping up a petition as we speak and expect a protest very, very soon.

http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/05/no_wor ... _obama.php