Thread: Response From NYS Att. General's Office on Illegals

Originally Posted by xanadu

Crocket'sGhost wrote:

The second possibility is that the government is operating under a separate authority from the Constitution, which most Americans presume to be its sole source of authority and power.

When the Emergency Banking Act was passed the United States filed bankruptcy. Assets (chatels) of this country were passed to the lenders who were European Bankers. I read somewhere there was a tie with the English Monarchy. Is this when our Constitution along with the Republic became obsolete? Is the concept held by the American people that the Republic is still functional only a myth perpetuated by those who orchestrated the events which led up to the Act?

Is this group of people (reportedly the royalty of Europe) the "seperate authority"?

Well, the theory is that the Republic exists (or at least existed) simultaneous with the new federal state, which was expanded as an overlay of the original republic. In palce of the several sovereign states are the ten federal zones identified by the first digit of the zip code. The states are simply subdivisions within the federal zones when under federal authority, which is why they are no longer properly abbreviated when used in that context, but given their two-letter code (such as CA instead of Ca. or Cal., MI instead of Mi. or Mich., etc.). So long as people or political subdivisions within the several states avoided agreements that tied them to the federal entity, the republic survived as a separate jurisdiction within the same geopraphical overlay. Those agreements include registration as a federal franchise via the SSN for people, and acceptance of the Declaration of Interdependence and the UCC for states and lesser political subdivisions.

And yes, the international banks in questions appear to be tied to the European monarchies (including several of those allegedly deposed, but who are the true force behind the EU), which are the body of the Holy Roman Empire. Even Great Britain, which supposedly separated from the HRE since the time of Henry VIII, sought later reconcilliation with the papacy and returned to the fold.

Originally Posted by xanadu

There is strong evidence that Lincoln, lacking a Congress because of his insistence that the Southern states could not secede and were therefore still part of the Union (that would mean that Congress had no quorum and therefore that no lawful business could be transacted, up to and including a declaration of war), ....[b]

Napolitano provides an enlightening history of the two choices which could have been made at the time of the Civil War. It was informative and disturbing and another "mythical American Hero" was debunked. Did the states loose the right to seceed as a result of the Banking Act or the fact they conceded to an alternative authority with the declaration of war against the states that wished to seceed? Napolitano clearly states a choice was made at that time. Had the congress enforced the original constitutional rights of the states would that have reinstated our Constitution as we understand it.

I thought the loss of states rights to seceed was the result of the reunion of the states at the end of the Civil War. What effect did the reunion of the states have upon the Constitution of the Republic or did it even exist to be affected?

Was the consequence of The Emergency Banking Act and the creation of a New entity the authority Lincoln imposed?

The right of secession is implicit in the nations' charter, the Declaration of Independence. Were there no such right, the colonies would have had no legal basis for separating from the British Empire. Lincoln simply refused to accept that right because doing so would have left him with a struggling industrial nation short on resources and even more short on tax revenues. He had no lawful authority to reject the secession of the states that became the Confederacy. Worse yet, his insistence that the states had not seceded left Congress without a quorum. Whether it was always his intent to seek monarchical power fron the Holy Roman Empire or whether he found himself requiring such authority because of the situation in Congress is unclear. Whatever the case, he sought and received such authority, and the evidence is painted right there on the Capitol rotunda and in the statue of Persephone atop the Capitol dome. Further proof is the dictatorial powers wileded by the federal beast during Reconstruction, including the absurd notion that ratification of an amendment (XIV) was required for readmission to the Union even though the premise had been that the states had never left the Union. What's more, how can a state that is no longer a state and requires readmission lawfully vote on an amendment prior to that readmission?

Originally Posted by xanadu

...sought external authority from the Holy Roman Empire and received apotheosis from the Vatican.

Is it possible the decendants of the Holy Roman empire in fact are in the royal blood lines fo Europe? Or does that imply the "control" is the Vatican?

Yes to both. One is part and parcel to the other.

Originally Posted by xanadu

The first is the exemption of the Executive Branch from lawsuit so long as there is no substantial evidence of bad faith or breach of oath. That is to say, so long as the act in question was taken in the actor's official capacity and within the scope of his (or her) legitimate duties, the exemption accrues.

The congress who legislated in behalf of those who instigated the Federal Reserve Act (which created an entity outside of the government ) in fact assisted those who orchestrated events that would require the need for the Emergency Banking Act. In fact that Congress (or those who voted to approve the act) were guilty of contributing to the deception perpetrated upon the "People". Would that not be considered "bad faith"?

Could a case be built impeaching that congress and the president after the fact? If so would that allow any restoration of the orignal Constitutional powers and infact restore the ability of the people to impeach with consequences?

Well, whatever the intent, Congress was nowhere within the Constitution authorized to abdicate its responsibility for the coining of money or to pass it to another entity. The Federal Reserve Act should have been illegal on its face. A law that is unjust (as duly adjudicated as such) or is unconstitutional is no law. Getting this government to accept that fact is another issue entirely, but if people had half the spunk of the founders of this nation, they would simply stop obeying unjest laws and tell the government where to stuff them. They would start using locally minted coin of precious metals (as required and allowed by the Constitution) and tell the Fed to take a flying leap. they would formally refuse to pay off fraudulent loans and leave the Fed floundering in uncollectable debt based on fraudulent loans. That would cut off the head of the beast.

Originally Posted by xanadu

...so long as the act in question was taken in the actor's official capacity and within the scope of his (or her) legitimate duties, the exemption accrues.

Are any of the duties actually legitmate? The oath was sworn to uphold and defend a Constitution which in theory may or may not exist as a living document. That is fraud and therefore removes the legitimacy of the duties performed.

Probably true, although the "constitution" that our leaders swear to uphold may well be a completely separate constitution from the one signed by our Founding Fathers. Don't laugh. The new entity under the Holy Roman Empire must have had a constitution of Great Charter. We would do well to require our elected officials to state WHICH constitution they are swearing to uphold.

Originally Posted by xanadu

The perpetuation (for decades) that the government allowed and in fact encouraged the belief that our original Constitution and Bill of Rights were still functional documents ---- is that not a breach of faith? If the Constitution is in fact not the utimate law of the land then the oath sworn is in fact a deception a lie perpetrated upon the People again a breach of faith. No oath can be sworn to a hollow document. By the mere fact they swore this oath... does that lend some credence to the fact the Constitution is in fact functional?

Strictly speaking, presumptive error on the part of one actor is not cause for accusation of fraud on the part of another, unless the second actor actively fostered the false presumption. So in theory it could represent bad faith and fraud, but the burden of proof would be on the defrauded party.

Originally Posted by xanadu

What I hear you saying is that if our Constitution is subserviant to another authority then we have no right of impeachment irregardless of the deception practiced upon the citizens of this nation. Is that correct?

No, it is apparent that whatever authority is being adhered to maintains the power of impeachment, but that power accrues to the Congress and not to the People, evenin our organic Constitution.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Cannot a case be built based upon the breaking of faith with the American people based upon pure unadulterated deception and entrapment?

Yes, but again the burden of proof lies with the People and their counsel. And in which court do you propose that such a case be brought? Would the supreme Court act in its capacity as a constitutionally created body, or as magistrates of the Holy Roman Empire, which has completely separate burdens of proof and indemnities. Under Roman Civil Law, a ruler may not be sued by the commoners.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Why are the only cases which are at least accepted by the court based upon the RICO act? There must be some connection between racketeering and the deception heaped upon the citizens of this country in order to profit. If RICO Act cases are at least admitted to the court (if not tried) then it would seem to me that could be a legal basis to pursue removal of those in present office who are illegally occupying positions of power as the result of KNOWINGLY continuing to perpetuate the deception in order to achieve financial benefit. Or is that trumped by "plausible denial".

I can't answer the RICO question, but my guess is that sovereign immunity would still apply to the Presidency.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Crocket I would really appreciate your answers to my questions. Thanks

Any time!

CrocketsGhost wrote:
So long as people or political subdivisions within the several states avoided agreements that tied them to the federal entity, the republic survived as a separate jurisdiction within the same geopraphical overlay. Those agreements include registration as a federal franchise via the SSN for people, and acceptance of the Declaration of Interdependence and the UCC for states and lesser political subdivisions.

What I think I understand this to mean is that when citizens were assigned a social security number it created an acknowledgement of the Federal. IF an individual (although they have been assigned a number) never collects funds based upon that number (i.e. medicaid or social security benefits) is that individual bound to the acceptance of the Federal entity by the fact they are assigned a number or do they still have an option to elect to be governed under the Republic Constitution because of the fact no transfer of funds occured implying interdependence between the individual and the Federal?

How does the fact most people attended public schools and those schools did in fact receive Federal funds affect the individual, it is or was the law that children attend schools?

With regard to the states as entities when they accepted Federal funding for lets say interstate highways, medicaid, school grants in fact any acceptance of Federal funds for any reason the states in fact nullified their right to operate under the Republic Constitution and accepted the Federal. Am I understanding you correctly?

If I am, then is it possible for individuals who have never accepted federal assistance on a personal level or have never attended a public school to be operating under the Republic Constitution and therefore keeping it alive?

Crocket wrote with regard to Lincoln and the reconstruction of the states:

Further proof is the dictatorial powers wileded by the federal beast during Reconstruction, including the absurd notion that ratification of an amendment (XIV) was required for readmission to the Union even though the premise had been that the states had never left the Union. What's more, how can a state that is no longer a state and requires readmission lawfully vote on an amendment prior to that readmission?

So technically with regard to your last sentence, I hear you saying that the XIV ammendment in fact is not a valid ammendment. Is that a accurate understanding on my part? With regard to "readmission to the union even though the had been the states had never left the Union" is that the element that created the dual Constitutions for the states? (Which apparently they have forfeited for good roads and whatever.)

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Well, whatever the intent, Congress was nowhere within the Constitution authorized to abdicate its responsibility for the coining of money or to pass it to another entity. The Federal Reserve Act should have been illegal on its face. A law that is unjust (as duly adjudicated as such) or is unconstitutional is no law.

That fact is why I asked if impeachment of that Congress and president was a possiblity to invalidate all that came after? Is that a sustainable argument?

CrocketsGhost continued:
Getting this government to accept that fact is another issue entirely, but if people had half the spunk of the founders of this nation, they would simply stop obeying unjest laws and tell the government where to stuff them. They would start using locally minted coin of precious metals (as required and allowed by the Constitution) and tell the Fed to take a flying leap. they would formally refuse to pay off fraudulent loans and leave the Fed floundering in uncollectable debt based on fraudulent loans. That would cut off the head of the beast.

This is something I have concidered. With regard to the Patriot Dollars. They contain precious metals however they were minted by the Federal government so they do not meet the requirement you are describing. Is that correct?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Probably true, although the "constitution" that our leaders swear to uphold may well be a completely separate constitution from the one signed by our Founding Fathers. Don't laugh. The new entity under the Holy Roman Empire must have had a constitution of Great Charter. We would do well to require our elected officials to state WHICH constitution they are swearing to uphold.

I haven't laughed since I learned this history. It was not in the history books I studied either in high school or college.

Has a copy of the "Federal" Constitution ever been examined or made public to the people? F.O.I.A. is a law made under the Federal Constitution could it be applied to obtain a copy of the "Great Charter" or whatever they have called it?

Just to irritate my senator I am going to ask him which Constitution he swore an oath to. I'll let you know if I get a response.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Strictly speaking, presumptive error on the part of one actor is not cause for accusation of fraud on the part of another, unless the second actor actively fostered the false presumption. So in theory it could represent bad faith and fraud, but the burden of proof would be on the defrauded party.

During Johnson's term (at the moment it slips my mind which legislation was signed but his signing statement has never left it) Johnson's signing statement was something to the effect, with this signing we can never go back. G.H.Bush was, I believe, the director of C.I.A. at the time and fully aware of the hsitory and the agenda being moved forward.

G.W.'s father and grandfather publically ascribed to one world government which in fact (if our Republic Constitution were alive by virtue of nothing other than individuals) the statement during his term in office would imply an agenda which would constitute a violation of his office which is to uphold and defend the constitution.

Aha... I see to which constitution did he swear allegance to. Its a circular argument that goes back to the Federal Reserve Act and proving each subsequent administration advanced the goal of undermining the Republic.

Lets be optimistic and say that case could be proven if so then G.W. would be a co conspirator who could not by virtue of family history credibly defend plausible denial. Is that too much of an assumption to make?
Is there any evidence of G.W. making statements regarding one world government?
Would not video evidence of such statements constitute additional proof that activities continued beyond the Federal Reserve Act for purposes of personal gain?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
No, it is apparent that whatever authority is being adhered to maintains the power of impeachment, but that power accrues to the Congress and not to the People, evenin our organic Constitution. ...
Yes, but again the burden of proof lies with the People and their counsel. And in which court do you propose that such a case be brought? Would the supreme Court act in its capacity as a constitutionally created body, or as magistrates of the Holy Roman Empire, which has completely separate burdens of proof and indemnities. Under Roman Civil Law, a ruler may not be sued by the commoners.

The Supreme Court was formulated under the Republic. It has however received gain from the Federal. Has anyone ever debated this subject?

If the Declaration of Indpendence was once functional, could it not be again? That's drastic I know but I am stubborn and I refuse to accept my perception of reality has been only a myth to quiet the masses over these long years. It existed therefore it is!

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
So long as people or political subdivisions within the several states avoided agreements that tied them to the federal entity, the republic survived as a separate jurisdiction within the same geopraphical overlay. Those agreements include registration as a federal franchise via the SSN for people, and acceptance of the Declaration of Interdependence and the UCC for states and lesser political subdivisions.

What I think I understand this to mean is that when citizens were assigned a social security number it created an acknowledgement of the Federal. IF an individual (although they have been assigned a number) never collects funds based upon that number (i.e. medicaid or social security benefits) is that individual bound to the acceptance of the Federal entity by the fact they are assigned a number or do they still have an option to elect to be governed under the Republic Constitution because of the fact no transfer of funds occured implying interdependence between the individual and the Federal?

Well, as I understand it, it works like this: When you are born you are registered via the birth certificate to be monetized as an asset claimed by the federal government. To actually be monetized, however, you have to overtly grant your assent upon reaching the age of consent, or by remaining silent and not renouncing any contract or agreement that your parents accepted on your behalf, thereby accepting through acquiescence. The overt assent is the voluntary application for an SSN, which becomes your federal franchise number. You are then monetized as a franchise of the federal entity and granted credit not to exceed your assigned monetary value, but most likely significantly less than that amount (which I seem to recall was something like $1.5 million per person). Because there is no more real money, everything is predicated on promise to pay, not actual payment. That's where your monetized signature comes in, and that's why the most important file in your existence becomes your credit rating. The credit rating determines the value of your signature for your own use. Most of your value is already pledged by the US against its debt to the international banking community. This is a possible reason that our government wants a flood of aliens to receive SSNs. Monetizing the aliens as American chattel raises the potential federal debt limit.

Since the federal franchise agreement is governed by the UCC and is not a common law contract, there is no requirement of knowledge, will and intent for the agreement to be binding. Under the UCC, all that is required is that the party receive benefit. Now, as to exactly what constitutes benefit, this is an issue that has been so rarely challenged that it remains an open question. The best bet is to never obtain an SSN. Having said that, at some point there is an underlying contract that may still be negated by fraud. There is undoubtedly fraud at work, given that the SSA will give various answers when asked whether one must obtain an SSN. For a period of time, the SSA was blatantly lying and claiming that an SSN was required. Because of heavy pressure from so-called patriot groups over the last 15 or so years, the SSA now admits grudgingly that there is (or at least was) no such requirement. All of that may have changed in 1997, at which time it appears that the federal government went into receivership. This was quite possibly the real cause of the federal shutdown that was blamed on the inability of Congress and the White House to reach a budget agreement. Many fundamental things changed after this shutdown, including the redesign of both our paper currency and coin and the fact that payments to the IRS which had, since its inception, been received (cashed) by a British holding company called R. E. Harrington, were suddenly payable to the United States Treasury. There were plenty of other pieces of evidence, but that's a whole different subject.

Originally Posted by xanadu

How does the fact most people attended public schools and those schools did in fact receive Federal funds affect the individual, it is or was the law that children attend schools?

It should have no effect, because we pay other legitimate federal taxes for which we should expect some services, and because public schools are primarily state and local institutions for which we pay state and local taxes. At the very least, it is a contestable proposition.

Originally Posted by xanadu

With regard to the states as entities when they accepted Federal funding for lets say interstate highways, medicaid, school grants in fact any acceptance of Federal funds for any reason the states in fact nullified their right to operate under the Republic Constitution and accepted the Federal. Am I understanding you correctly?

That is probably not correct. The compact with the federal government grants that government the authority to collect taxes from the states and their citizens, and allows the states to avail themselves of certain services provided by the federal government as specified in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by xanadu

If I am, then is it possible for individuals who have never accepted federal assistance on a personal level or have never attended a public school to be operating under the Republic Constitution and therefore keeping it alive?

This is in fact quite possible. What's more, if you believe that you can prove that you were defrauded by the federal government through incomplete, misleading, or false information and that your receipt of benefits was based upon that fraud, you may be able to retain your status outside the federal entity even after having received previous benefits.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Crocket wrote with regard to Lincoln and the reconstruction of the states:

Further proof is the dictatorial powers wileded by the federal beast during Reconstruction, including the absurd notion that ratification of an amendment (XIV) was required for readmission to the Union even though the premise had been that the states had never left the Union. What's more, how can a state that is no longer a state and requires readmission lawfully vote on an amendment prior to that readmission?

So technically with regard to your last sentence, I hear you saying that the XIV ammendment in fact is not a valid ammendment. Is that a accurate understanding on my part? With regard to "readmission to the union even though the had been the states had never left the Union" is that the element that created the dual Constitutions for the states? (Which apparently they have forfeited for good roads and whatever.)

Well, under the rules set forth by the Constitution, Amendment XIV cannot be held to have been lawfully ratified, beccause the condition of duress would have made the votes to ratify by the former Confederate states null and void. The open question is whether they were being "readmitted" to the "union" created by the Constitution, or whether they were being admitted to a new entity created under Roman Civil Law and the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire. The latter appears to have been the case, though case law if hopelessly muddled from the period of Reconstruction to the final reorganization under the New Deal. My own best guess is that the constitutional government was subordinated to a new entity by Lincoln, but that because most people (perhaps even most politicians) were not fully aware of the overthrow of the constitutional government, a small group worked to gradually codify the new legal system, the theft of our monetary system, and all the other usupations that culminated in the New Deal, while others labored under the misapprehension that the Constitution was still in place and that the government had resumed in its antebellum form. That's why judicial renderings between 1870 and 1937 are so hopelessly muddled.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Well, whatever the intent, Congress was nowhere within the Constitution authorized to abdicate its responsibility for the coining of money or to pass it to another entity. The Federal Reserve Act should have been illegal on its face. A law that is unjust (as duly adjudicated as such) or is unconstitutional is no law.

That fact is why I asked if impeachment of that Congress and president was a possiblity to invalidate all that came after? Is that a sustainable argument?

No, it is not a sustainable argument because the persons who would have to be tried are no longer alive to defend themselves, and because impeachment is not a normal judicial proceeding, but rather a special tribunal convened by Congress. For the same reason that Congress will not impeach this current President, it will not impeach deceased members of their own government, even if trying the dead in absentia was a practical possiblity.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost continued:
Getting this government to accept that fact is another issue entirely, but if people had half the spunk of the founders of this nation, they would simply stop obeying unjust laws and tell the government where to stuff them. They would start using locally minted coin of precious metals (as required and allowed by the Constitution) and tell the Fed to take a flying leap. they would formally refuse to pay off fraudulent loans and leave the Fed floundering in uncollectable debt based on fraudulent loans. That would cut off the head of the beast.

This is something I have concidered. With regard to the Patriot Dollars. They contain precious metals however they were minted by the Federal government so they do not meet the requirement you are describing. Is that correct?

The Constitution allowed for all sorts of entities to coin money. The states and some of the territories once coined their own money, as did some of the early banks. Article 1, Sec. 10 was the cause of some early confusion, as some argued that this section did not prohibit states from coining money, but rather that it prohibited them from coining money of anything but gold or silver. Furthermore, foreign currency (especially the Spanish dollar) was accepted as legal tender for decades after the creation of the dollar as the official monetary specie in 1792. The point of all this is to demonstrate that there have been other forms of legal tender in the US, though the Constitution appears to require that any entity other than the Treasury be required to issue only gold or silver (or presumably notes representing an actual value of gold or silver held in reserve) as tender.

It should be noted that the famous silver bust supposedly engineered by the Hunt Brothers was the result of the Fed stopping a plan by the Hunts and John Connolly to create a Bank of Texas that would issue currency backed by silver. I myself attempted to get another such Texas bank belonging to the state up and running under one of our former governors, who unfortunately failed re-election before the plan could be formalized.

So, with regard to Patriot Dollars, it is my understanding that they may not be considered legal tender (which must, by law, be accepted for payment of debts), but they are acceptable barter. The same is true of foreign-minted coins of gold and silver. The only problem is that they have no fixed value, but rather fluctuate based upon commodity prices and coin condition.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Probably true, although the "constitution" that our leaders swear to uphold may well be a completely separate constitution from the one signed by our Founding Fathers. Don't laugh. The new entity under the Holy Roman Empire must have had a constitution of Great Charter. We would do well to require our elected officials to state WHICH constitution they are swearing to uphold.

I haven't laughed since I learned this history. It was not in the history books I studied either in high school or college.

Has a copy of the "Federal" Constitution ever been examined or made public to the people? F.O.I.A. is a law made under the Federal Constitution could it be applied to obtain a copy of the "Great Charter" or whatever they have called it?

Just to irritate my senator I am going to ask him which Constitution he swore an oath to. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Well, the interesting thing about the Freedom of Information Act is that it does not apply to laws, statutes, federal regulations, etc. It applies only to such personal or public data as the government may have accumulated. It would not, therefore, be of any use for the location of such a document.

It is worth noting that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind a document called the Newstates Constitution that it was trying to get ramrodded through a few decades back. The thing resurfaces from time to time, and it quite closely resembles the constitutions we created for Germany and Japan following WWII, in that it creates a number of obligations of the people to the government, and that it codifies no inalienable rights. The rights of these constitutions are the revocable "civil rights" granted by government under Roman Civil Law.

More important, perhaps, is the government's adoption of the Dulles Doctrine back in the early post-WWII era, which probably obviated the need for any separate constitution. The Dulles Doctrine holds that treaties are superior law to the Constitution. The UN Treaty, therefore, would make the UN Charter and its various codifications of laws and rights our Supreme Law.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Strictly speaking, presumptive error on the part of one actor is not cause for accusation of fraud on the part of another, unless the second actor actively fostered the false presumption. So in theory it could represent bad faith and fraud, but the burden of proof would be on the defrauded party.

During Johnson's term (at the moment it slips my mind which legislation was signed but his signing statement has never left it) Johnson's signing statement was something to the effect, with this signing we can never go back. G.H.Bush was, I believe, the director of C.I.A. at the time and fully aware of the hsitory and the agenda being moved forward.

G.W.'s father and grandfather publically ascribed to one world government which in fact (if our Republic Constitution were alive by virtue of nothing other than individuals) the statement during his term in office would imply an agenda which would constitute a violation of his office which is to uphold and defend the constitution.

Aha... I see to which constitution did he swear allegance to. Its a circular argument that goes back to the Federal Reserve Act and proving each subsequent administration advanced the goal of undermining the Republic.

Lets be optimistic and say that case could be proven if so then G.W. would be a co conspirator who could not by virtue of family history credibly defend plausible denial. Is that too much of an assumption to make?
Is there any evidence of G.W. making statements regarding one world government?
Would not video evidence of such statements constitute additional proof that activities continued beyond the Federal Reserve Act for purposes of personal gain?

Well, that's all well and good in theory, but whether any of it constitutes an actionable offense is another matter entirely. With the exception of Eisenhower, possibly Reagan and (probably) JFK, there is no question that pretty much every other President of the last century was an unabashed globalist. Nixon may have had his own separate agenda, but w know that FDR and Truman were globalists and that FDR was a shill of the international bankers who was made President specifically because he would do the dirty work of remaking US law and our federal government to facilitate the administration of the 1930 bankruptcy. LBJ's globalist-socialist bent goes without saying. Carter was a proud member of the CFR. George H.W. Bush was an old Skull and Bones guy, and Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. We know what these guys were and are. Doing something about from within the system that they control is another matter entirely.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
No, it is apparent that whatever authority is being adhered to maintains the power of impeachment, but that power accrues to the Congress and not to the People, evenin our organic Constitution. ...
Yes, but again the burden of proof lies with the People and their counsel. And in which court do you propose that such a case be brought? Would the supreme Court act in its capacity as a constitutionally created body, or as magistrates of the Holy Roman Empire, which has completely separate burdens of proof and indemnities. Under Roman Civil Law, a ruler may not be sued by the commoners.

The Supreme Court was formulated under the Republic. It has however received gain from the Federal. Has anyone ever debated this subject?

If the Declaration of Indpendence was once functional, could it not be again? That's drastic I know but I am stubborn and I refuse to accept my perception of reality has been only a myth to quiet the masses over these long years. It existed therefore it is!

[/quote]
Which Supreme Court? There is no question that the original Supreme Court was created by the Constitution. Under what authority have courts after the Civil War or after FDR's Federal Rules Act been constituted?

The Declaration of Independence is unquestionably functional. On the other hand, the American people were given unlimited right to contract, up to and including contracting oneself into voluntary indentured servitude, which is even retained as an option in Amendment XIII. So you may claim your liberty if you have not contracted it away. One of the important portions of the UCC (sec. 1-207) allows for a reservation of rights, which must be specific and timely. Since this is international mercantile law, there is no presumption of rights. What this means is that any UCC agreement carries with it an implicit waiver of rights UNLESS a specific and timely reservation of rights is made. You must always know what you are signing and understand what the consequences of your signature may be. That's why many Americans accompany every signature on any governmental, financial or banking document with the phrase, "without prejudice," or some similar blanket reservation.

Crocket I cannot thank YOU enough. Really! THANK YOU

You have clairified so much for me today. THANKS! Just a few more questions and I'll ask your permission if we can discuss this again because I know as I fully assimulate all of this information I will no doubt have more questions.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
It is worth noting that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind a document called the Newstates Constitution that it was trying to get ramrodded through a few decades back. The thing resurfaces from time to time, and it quite closely resembles the constitutions we created for Germany and Japan following WWII, in that it creates a number of obligations of the people to the government, and that it codifies no inalienable rights. The rights of these constitutions are the revocable "civil rights" granted by government under Roman Civil Law.

More important, perhaps, is the government's adoption of the Dulles Doctrine back in the early post-WWII era, which probably obviated the need for any separate constitution. The Dulles Doctrine holds that treaties are superior law to the Constitution. The UN Treaty, therefore, would make the UN Charter and its various codifications of laws and rights our Supreme Law.

What intrigues me at the moment about your answer is the statement that treaties are superior law to the Constitution. So what I understand you to be saying is we as individuals are now governed by the Charter of the United Nations despite our belief we are governed by our Republic Constitution. AGAIN I SCREAM FRAUD but I'll zip that to ask more questions.

Given the fact that the U.N. Charter supercedes the Republic and Federal Constitutions (should the Federal document exist) our Second Ammendment would be suborned by the Treaty. Is that correct? If so do citizens of this country have a right to form a militia or bear arms in self defense or defense of our sovereignty?

IF in fact the U.N. is able to pass a Ban on guns does that mean the citizens of this nation will be forced to oblige that treaty? If they refuse what are the potential consequences? Has our sovereignty been compromised in any manner by the U.N. Treaty / Charter?

Or for that matter by the suspected receivership which may have occurred in 1997? Are there codes within the U.N. Charter that provide for the possiblity of foreign troops on U.S. soil?

Is Bolton the individual who would be authorized to sign such a treaty or would it be subject to review by the Congress? If the United States Congress refused to sign this treaty would that in some manner retain the right of citizens to bear arms in this country?

What effect does the belief by citizens of this country that they are operating under the Republic Constitution and unaware that the U.N. Charter is now the law of the land have as far as a defense for their right to bear arms?

The U.N. Treaty was signed after WWII. It supercedes the Federal. Does that document have any effect upon the Federal ability to monetorize citizens after that signing? If so would people born after that date not be considered chatel?

I am sure you are going to say "in what court would you try this" but I will ask anyway. Where does Natural Law come into play in all this quagmire regarding people as property to be mortgaged as assets? The concept of individuals as chatel is opposed to Natural Law. Does Natural Law take precidence? Please say yes.

What act is required to get this nation out of the Treaty with the U.N.?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
When you are born you are registered via the birth certificate to be monetized as an asset claimed by the federal government. To actually be monetized, however, you have to overtly grant your assent upon reaching the age of consent, or by remaining silent and not renouncing any contract or agreement that your parents accepted on your behalf, thereby accepting through acquiescence.

Then if the parents of the child apply for the SSN at their birth the child has the option at the age of consent to renounce contracts made in his/her behalf. This would require a statement by the child. What is the procedure to do this? Is it possible to be done by the parent in behalf of a minor child? Would the child in fact be renouncing citizenship?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
For a period of time, the SSA was blatantly lying and claiming that an SSN was required. Because of heavy pressure from so-called patriot groups over the last 15 or so years, the SSA now admits grudgingly that there is (or at least was) no such requirement.

Does the fact people were lied to which constitutes fraud negate the federalization of the individual through the SSN?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
All of that may have changed in 1997, at which time it appears that the federal government went into receivership. This was quite possibly the real cause of the federal shutdown that was blamed on the inability of Congress and the White House to reach a budget agreement. Many fundamental things changed after this shutdown, including the redesign of both our paper currency and coin and the fact that payments to the IRS which had, since its inception, been received (cashed) by a British holding company called R. E. Harrington, were suddenly payable to the United States Treasury. There were plenty of other pieces of evidence, but that's a whole different subject.

Where are the checks to the U.N. received?

When the country went into receivership did that cancel any opportunity for a citizen to excercise any right to renounce the obligation imposed upon them without their knowledge by the SSN?

The fact the checks are now payable to the United States Treasury...does this imply that Citizens born prior to 1997 may in fact have been transferred as payment of the debt?

What about the "new" debt the 8 trillion... what did they do - collateralize all those citizens born after 1997? And yes I see your point regarding monitorizing the aliens as new citizens and increasing the Federal debt limit.

Is the reason for securing our border so critical not because of security but because of the physical act of enforcing sovereignty of the land? Would enforcing our sovereignty somehow validate the Republic Constitution since the People believe that to be the law of the land?

Ooops that was a bit more than a few questions. I guess I started assimilating sooner than I expected. Thank you for being so patient.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
It is worth noting that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind a document called the Newstates Constitution that it was trying to get ramrodded through a few decades back. The thing resurfaces from time to time, and it quite closely resembles the constitutions we created for Germany and Japan following WWII, in that it creates a number of obligations of the people to the government, and that it codifies no inalienable rights. The rights of these constitutions are the revocable "civil rights" granted by government under Roman Civil Law.

My goodness, I'd forgotten about that, CG!

XANADU wrote:
IF in fact the U.N. is able to pass a Ban on guns does that mean the citizens of this nation will be forced to oblige that treaty? If they refuse what are the potential consequences? Has our sovereignty been compromised in any manner by the U.N. Treaty / Charter?

Imho, if this were to happen, it would be the straw that broke the proverbial back and Americans would no longer maintain snooze mode.

The majority of the country hate {not dislike} but hate the UN and the last round of massive fraud cinched it. The 2nd amendment stands upon a pedestal of it's own for Americans and the entire WORLD KNOWS THIS. It has been a desire, both in our country and around the world to disarm us as they know us to be the "fly in the ointment" of their One World Order. They also know that we are fearless when provoked.

They are walking on eggshells behind the scenes to do their dirty work knowing............that Americans will not go quietly into the night.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Crocket I cannot thank YOU enough. Really! THANK YOU

You have clairified so much for me today. THANKS! Just a few more questions and I'll ask your permission if we can discuss this again because I know as I fully assimulate all of this information I will no doubt have more questions.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
It is worth noting that the Rockefeller Foundation was behind a document called the Newstates Constitution that it was trying to get ramrodded through a few decades back. The thing resurfaces from time to time, and it quite closely resembles the constitutions we created for Germany and Japan following WWII, in that it creates a number of obligations of the people to the government, and that it codifies no inalienable rights. The rights of these constitutions are the revocable "civil rights" granted by government under Roman Civil Law.

More important, perhaps, is the government's adoption of the Dulles Doctrine back in the early post-WWII era, which probably obviated the need for any separate constitution. The Dulles Doctrine holds that treaties are superior law to the Constitution. The UN Treaty, therefore, would make the UN Charter and its various codifications of laws and rights our Supreme Law.

What intrigues me at the moment about your answer is the statement that treaties are superior law to the Constitution. So what I understand you to be saying is we as individuals are now governed by the Charter of the United Nations despite our belief we are governed by our Republic Constitution. AGAIN I SCREAM FRAUD but I'll zip that to ask more questions.

Given the fact that the U.N. Charter supercedes the Republic and Federal Constitutions (should the Federal document exist) our Second Ammendment would be suborned by the Treaty. Is that correct? If so do citizens of this country have a right to form a militia or bear arms in self defense or defense of our sovereignty?

Well, that depends on the People, doesn't it. The Dulles Doctrine is predicated on Article VI of the Constitution, which states that, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

There are a couple of ways to view this article. Most patriotic Americans would say that it is clear that a treaty made "under the authority of the United states" would be constrained by the protections and prohibitions of the Constitution that created the United States. That's how the provision was viewed for well over 150 years. Dulles apparently chose to ignore the quoted portion, but it is possible that he knew exactly what he was doing and that the source of authority for the United States (the federal entity) had changed since Lincoln's treachery.

But whatever the case, even a tyranny can only wield such authority as the people will allow it to wield, and can only usurp that which the people will surrender.

I guess the answer is that the government may believe that the protections of Amendment II have been superseded, but making the move to attempt to take our guns is a course best carefully considered. I know that Texas would probably see a popular revolt before rolling over for such a law. That's why the bastards have tried to nip away at us by incrementalism. Whatever our buddy dxd thinks about the Republicans, at least they have rolled back many of the gun-grabbing laws that the Dems were trying to maintain.

Originally Posted by xanadu

IF in fact the U.N. is able to pass a Ban on guns does that mean the citizens of this nation will be forced to oblige that treaty? If they refuse what are the potential consequences? Has our sovereignty been compromised in any manner by the U.N. Treaty / Charter?

As always, might makes right. They cannot take what they cannot take. We need to make sure that they continue to understand the potential consequences of attempting to disarm us. One frightening development, however, is the increasing training of UN forces on American soil. Our own military probably would resist any order to disarm us. Foreign UN troops would have no such reservations.

For the time being, the UN is unlikely to upset the applecart with such a bold move.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Or for that matter by the suspected receivership which may have occurred in 1997? Are there codes within the U.N. Charter that provide for the possiblity of foreign troops on U.S. soil?

I'm not sure about UN codes, but obviously the UN has previously claimed the authority to move troops against nations that violate its dictates. As long as the US has veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council and as long as our own administration does not turn on us, this is unlikely. I don't know that I would trust a Hillary Clinton not to turn on us.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Is Bolton the individual who would be authorized to sign such a treaty or would it be subject to review by the Congress? If the United States Congress refused to sign this treaty would that in some manner retain the right of citizens to bear arms in this country?

I'm not sure which treaty you are referring to. The UN has already stated that it opposes private ownership of firearms. If our own President was to agree and to request UN assistance in rounding up weapons, there would be no treaty required, legally speaking, though even many of our otherwise useless politicians would probably resist such a move.

Originally Posted by xanadu

What effect does the belief by citizens of this country that they are operating under the Republic Constitution and unaware that the U.N. Charter is now the law of the land have as far as a defense for their right to bear arms?

Well, where this hurts us is that we feel artificially secure because we naiively believe that we are protected against such a doublecross from our own government. We falsely believe that we are a sovereign nation immune to so-called international law. That is a mistake. The fact is that the minute that we are perceived as being sufficiently vulnerable, we will be subjected to international law and robbed of any vestige of sovereignty. That's why the sorry state of our public education system and the rank ignorance of its graduates is so troubling.

Originally Posted by xanadu

The U.N. Treaty was signed after WWII. It supercedes the Federal. Does that document have any effect upon the Federal ability to monetorize citizens after that signing? If so would people born after that date not be considered chatel?

To the contrary. The citizens are monetized under the lex mercatorum, which is the closest thing to real international law as there is.

Originally Posted by xanadu

I am sure you are going to say "in what court would you try this" but I will ask anyway. Where does Natural Law come into play in all this quagmire regarding people as property to be mortgaged as assets? The concept of individuals as chatel is opposed to Natural Law. Does Natural Law take precidence? Please say yes.

As long as the rule of law holds, you are correct that Natural Law (Common Law) still takes precedence IF there is no contract or agreement removing one to another jurisdiction. That's the problem. There are so many entrapments and so many judges in cahoots with those crafting those entrapments that paring away the statutory and mercantile overlays to get down to Common Law is almost impossible.

Originally Posted by xanadu

What act is required to get this nation out of the Treaty with the U.N.?

Congress can exit any treaty, though some treaties cary penalties for exiting that can be enforced by other member states or supranational organizations. These would most likely be trade barriers or punitive tariffs.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
When you are born you are registered via the birth certificate to be monetized as an asset claimed by the federal government. To actually be monetized, however, you have to overtly grant your assent upon reaching the age of consent, or by remaining silent and not renouncing any contract or agreement that your parents accepted on your behalf, thereby accepting through acquiescence.

Then if the parents of the child apply for the SSN at their birth the child has the option at the age of consent to renounce contracts made in his/her behalf. This would require a statement by the child. What is the procedure to do this? Is it possible to be done by the parent in behalf of a minor child? Would the child in fact be renouncing citizenship?

Well, there are two questions here. The first is that the renunciation would have to be done by the former child upon reaching the age of consent. Prior to attaining the age of consent, he is bound to the actions taken on his behalf by his parents or guardians. Any agreement or contract may be renounced once one reaches the Age of Reason. The procedure is to file official notice of rescission to the other party and to post a public notice. It should be witnessed and sealed by a notary.

As for citizenship, that's another tricky subject. There are actually two quite distinct types of citizenship in this nation. The first is the original status, which is that of the sovereign of one of the several states, who is non-resident alien with respect to the federal entity. These are the People cited by the nation's founding documents.

The second form of citizenship is that created by Amendment XIV. It is similar from a legal standpoint to the citizenship afforded to inhabitants of federal possessions or of the District of Columbia. Note that the District of Columbia, unlike the republic formed by the several states, is a legislative democracy (Art. I, Sec. . That means that as far as laws governing those folks are concerned, anything goes so long as the laws are passed by the majority of the legislative democracy. It has been specifically ruled in multiple Supreme Court decisions that the protections of the Bill of Rights do not accrue for the extra-republican inhabitants of the federal zone and its possessions.

So, the trick has been to get Americans to self-identify as "United States citizens" and "US residents," both of which are presumed to be subjects of the legislative democracy. That's why we are constantly told that we live in a democracy despite the fact that the Founding Fathers specifically rejected the mob rule of democracy and guaranteed a republican form of government. this is done in multiple ways, including the provisions of everything from your bank signature card to being a statutory condition for the receipt of many federal benefits. How many documents have you signed asserting your status as a resident of the United States (which refers to the federal entity, not the republic, as defined by every edition of Black's until the latest one, which was revised immediately following the receivership of 1997)?

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
For a period of time, the SSA was blatantly lying and claiming that an SSN was required. Because of heavy pressure from so-called patriot groups over the last 15 or so years, the SSA now admits grudgingly that there is (or at least was) no such requirement.

Does the fact people were lied to which constitutes fraud negate the federalization of the individual through the SSN?

Potentially, yes.

Originally Posted by xanadu

CrocketsGhost wrote:
All of that may have changed in 1997, at which time it appears that the federal government went into receivership. This was quite possibly the real cause of the federal shutdown that was blamed on the inability of Congress and the White House to reach a budget agreement. Many fundamental things changed after this shutdown, including the redesign of both our paper currency and coin and the fact that payments to the IRS which had, since its inception, been received (cashed) by a British holding company called R. E. Harrington, were suddenly payable to the United States Treasury. There were plenty of other pieces of evidence, but that's a whole different subject.

Where are the checks to the U.N. received?

I don't know. Harrington was the holding company charged by the banks to which the US was bankrupt in 1930 to recover the debt. There is evidence that the IRS as it now exists was chartered as a Delaware corporation by R.E. Harrington. I'm not sure how much credence I give to that opinion, but it's out there. What is certain is that the IRS is not a regular office or department of our federal government.

Originally Posted by xanadu

When the country went into receivership did that cancel any opportunity for a citizen to excercise any right to renounce the obligation imposed upon them without their knowledge by the SSN?

It probably makes it more difficult, but it is, to my knowledge, legally untested at this point.

Originally Posted by xanadu

The fact the checks are now payable to the United States Treasury...does this imply that Citizens born prior to 1997 may in fact have been transferred as payment of the debt?

I think that it simply means that the banks no longer require an external collection agent now that they own the Treasury.

Originally Posted by xanadu

What about the "new" debt the 8 trillion... what did they do - collateralize all those citizens born after 1997? And yes I see your point regarding monitorizing the aliens as new citizens and increasing the Federal debt limit.

Actually, the debt ceiling was just raised to over $9 trillion. The means by which the debt ceiling is raised is somewhat arcane. It's not just a matter of Congress deciding that we can issue more bonds. The international financiers who back the debt must approve the additional debt or else our bonds tank. Either there have to be new collateralized citizens or it must be demonstrated that those already monetized are somehow worth more than the amount at which they were originally monetized (which is basically the same process by which a piece of real estate is reappraised prior to issuing a loan against it).

Originally Posted by xanadu

Is the reason for securing our border so critical not because of security but because of the physical act of enforcing sovereignty of the land? Would enforcing our sovereignty somehow validate the Republic Constitution since the People believe that to be the law of the land?

I don't think that it's that complicated. I think that a flood of peasant foreigners who are allowed to vote makes the final consolidation of federal power necessary to move us beyond any vestige of sovereignty that much easier. It's dissolution by dilution. It also has the effect of providing the government with more monetized chattel.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Ooops that was a bit more than a few questions. I guess I started assimilating sooner than I expected. Thank you for being so patient.

No problem.

If it comes to a point that you are asking questions and I am not answering, it's probably because I am buried with work or back out of town. I have several weeklong trips upcoming. If you see me return and there are outstanding questions, just shoot me a PM and let me know where to find the thread.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

XANADU wrote:
IF in fact the U.N. is able to pass a Ban on guns does that mean the citizens of this nation will be forced to oblige that treaty? If they refuse what are the potential consequences? Has our sovereignty been compromised in any manner by the U.N. Treaty / Charter?

Imho, if this were to happen, it would be the straw that broke the proverbial back and Americans would no longer maintain snooze mode.

The majority of the country hate {not dislike} but hate the UN and the last round of massive fraud cinched it. The 2nd amendment stands upon a pedestal of it's own for Americans and the entire WORLD KNOWS THIS. It has been a desire, both in our country and around the world to disarm us as they know us to be the "fly in the ointment" of their One World Order. They also know that we are fearless when provoked.

They are walking on eggshells behind the scenes to do their dirty work knowing............that Americans will not go quietly into the night.

Well, that's certainly the hope. The reality is that we had better keep ourselves prepared to see to it that the fears of the globalists are realized if the day comes that they decide to test the theory.

Xana asked:
Given the fact that the U.N. Charter supercedes the Republic and Federal Constitutions (should the Federal document exist) our Second Ammendment would be suborned by the Treaty. Is that correct? If so do citizens of this country have a right to form a militia or bear arms in self defense or defense of our sovereignty?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Well, that depends on the People, doesn't it. The Dulles Doctrine is predicated on Article VI of the Constitution, which states that, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

There are a couple of ways to view this article. Most patriotic Americans would say that it is clear that a treaty made "under the authority of the United states" would be constrained by the protections and prohibitions of the Constitution that created the United States. That's how the provision was viewed for well over 150 years.
Dulles apparently chose to ignore the quoted portion, but it is possible that he knew exactly what he was doing and that the source of authority for the United States (the federal entity) had changed since Lincoln's treachery.

But whatever the case, even a tyranny can only wield such authority as the people will allow it to wield, and can only usurp that which the people will surrender.

During those 150 years the Republic Constitution is referenced in decisions therefore it must exist along side the unpublished Federal. It is still referenced today although more and more "international law" is used to base determinations on. If I have understood that quagmire correctly then I have to assume both constitutions are functioning simultaneously. How can that be? If we have not seen this charter it cannot be assumed it either exists or does not exist. If it does not exist then the only thing the Federal "entity" does is grant "authority".

If only authority is granted via the Federal then the U.N. Charter cannot under the terms of the Republic be the "Supreme Law of the Land" it would be equal to the Constitution. I have obviously missed something here. All I know is cases have been resolved based upon the Republic post Federal. So it must exist to some degree.

Having said that how does Dulles (which expands presidential powers) have authority under the constitution without an ammendment? We better keep Dulles for another day ... your right.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
I guess the answer is that the government may believe that the protections of Amendment II have been superseded, but making the move to attempt to take our guns is a course best carefully considered. ...
I'm not sure which treaty you are referring to.

There is supposedly a Global Treaty to Ban all Guns on the U.N. table on July 4, 2006.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
One frightening development, however, is the increasing training of UN forces on American soil. Our own military probably would resist any order to disarm us. Foreign UN troops would have no such reservations.

Where did they get the authority to do this? From the Federal or from the expanded presidential powers?
Hasn't the presence of U.N. Troops training on U.S. soil been questioned?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
I'm not sure about UN codes, but obviously the UN has previously claimed the authority to move troops against nations that violate its dictates. As long as the US has veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council and as long as our own administration does not turn on us, this is unlikely.

So our perminent membership and our veto power is the argument for the United States to remain in the U.N.? By remaining in the U.N. we have the power to control or at least attempt to control events which affect this nation. Right? You'll have to bring me up to speed on U.N. protocol. I haven't read the charter of our new master yet. Does one veto from a perminent member kill the deal?

It would appear to me the administration has already turned against the People with its foot dragging on closing the border and NAFTA, CAFTA and U.N. troops "training" on our soil. I am confused by his abuse of the U.N. though. The U.N. represents one world government. Bush seems to subscribe to that. Ahaaaaaaaaa (light bulb clicks) Clinton in power in the U.N. gotcha!

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Well, where this hurts us is that we feel artificially secure because we naiively believe that we are protected against such a doublecross from our own government. We falsely believe that we are a sovereign nation immune to so-called international law. That is a mistake. The fact is that the minute that we are perceived as being sufficiently vulnerable, we will be subjected to international law and robbed of any vestige of sovereignty.

I think push is about to come to shove on this matter because of the border situation. People are awakening and sense all is not well in the White House. I think they are counting on 2008 to change things but unless they realize just how convoluted this is and who the players are nothing will change.

I am concerned about the illegal vote and I am more concerned about the "electronic no paper trail vote machines". What can be done about those voting machines? Pardon the pun but will it take an act of Congress to get that straightened out and if so why haven't they acted?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Congress can exit any treaty, though some treaties cary penalties for exiting that can be enforced by other member states or supranational organizations. These would most likely be trade barriers or punitive tariffs.

This conjures up an interesting scenario with regard to American firms that have moved overseas being restricted from selling in this nation.

With regard to Nafta, Cafta and the disturbing Security and Prosperity Partnership. I have no doubt in my mind, barring all out war on our own soil, that this nation could recover and prosper without the rest of the world draining us. But to do that we would have to withdraw from the U.N. and it sounds like the only thing holding the door closed to a potential occupation by U.N. Troops is the fact we are a member. Am I understanding that correctly?

CrocketsGhost wrote: (with regard to citizenship)
Well, there are two questions here. The first is that the renunciation would have to be done by the former child upon reaching the age of consent. Prior to attaining the age of consent, he is bound to the actions taken on his behalf by his parents or guardians. Any agreement or contract may be renounced once one reaches the Age of Reason. The procedure is to file official notice of rescission to the other party and to post a public notice. It should be witnessed and sealed by a notary.

Does this official notice of recission need to be prepared by an attorney? Would this action remove the child as a citizen of the Federal but still maintain a form of citizenship to the United States or a state within the United States. Geeesh I may need a graph to understand this Crocket. Don't laugh it is not funny and I DO understand why no one is anxious to peal away the layers to find Common or Natural Law.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
As for citizenship, that's another tricky subject. There are actually two quite distinct types of citizenship in this nation. The first is the original status, which is that of the sovereign of one of the several states, who is non-resident alien with respect to the federal entity. These are the People cited by the nation's founding documents.

I am lost already. Is this the correct understanding of your statement. The "original status" applies to those who are born in this country to parents who are citizens of this country? We are residents of the State we are born in. The state is the "non-resident alien" to the Federal???

CrocketsGhost wrote:
The second form of citizenship is that created by Amendment XIV. It is similar from a legal standpoint to the citizenship afforded to inhabitants of federal possessions or of the District of Columbia.

My understanding of the XIV th is that it was intended to convey citizenship to the freed slaves. Now it is perhaps used beyond its original intention and conveys automatic citizenship to anyone born on this nation's soil irregardless of the parent's status. Does this child have the same rights and obligations as a child born in this country to parents who are citizens of this country?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
Note that the District of Columbia, unlike the republic formed by the several states, is a legislative democracy (Art. I, Sec. . That means that as far as laws governing those folks are concerned, anything goes so long as the laws are passed by the majority of the legislative democracy. It has been specifically ruled in multiple Supreme Court decisions that the protections of the Bill of Rights do not accrue for the extra-republican inhabitants of the federal zone and its possessions.

Please define "extra-republican inhabitants. I think I heard you say that people who live in Washington D.C. or say in Puerto Rico do not have the benefit of the bill of rights. Is that correct? And as aside anyone else living in any location of the United States does not have the benefit of the Bill of Rights at this time.

CrocketsGhost wrote:
So, the trick has been to get Americans to self-identify as "United States citizens" and "US residents," both of which are presumed to be subjects of the legislative democracy.

Whose trick? The Federal? How would the person who excutes the recision be described? Would they state they are a citizen of the Republic of the United States?

CrocketsGhost wrote:
That's why we are constantly told that we live in a democracy despite the fact that the Founding Fathers specifically rejected the mob rule of democracy and guaranteed a republican form of government. this is done in multiple ways, including the provisions of everything from your bank signature card to being a statutory condition for the receipt of many federal benefits. How many documents have you signed asserting your status as a resident of the United States (which refers to the federal entity, not the republic, as defined by every edition of Black's until the latest one, which was revised immediately following the receivership of 1997)?

Okay... I think my assimilation factor just melted down. Tell me if I have misunderstood and then draw me a picture please

Let me feed this back to you and see if I understand it. A person born to two parents both citizens of the United States is automatically a citizen of the Federal. It is up to that person to rescind the Federal through public notice and appropriate documents.

At that point the person can then declare themselves a citizen of the Republic of the United States which may or may not exist. (That's interesting.) Having done that would this person have the right to vote?

Would this person be subject to entrapment (snared back as a chatel) if they signed a document stating they were a resident of the United States as opposed to a resident of the Republic of the United States. Am I anywhere close to understanding this mess?

There is quit a bit more information in your answer but I think I should pause and make sure I am understanding the information before I bounce off on another topic. I particularly need to be sure I understand the citizenship quagmire. Federalist do not subscribe to the Kiss principle do they.

You guys should get each other's phone numbers.

No, do not exchange phone numbers. This is the most interesting exchange I have every read. Please keep going for us all to read.