Category Archives: Media Blackout

Hawaii Five Uh-Oh…

Corruption, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed September 21, 2009

Leo Donofrio is on the case helping Hawaii’s newest patriot [PI] fighting crime, Ms Tickly aka TerriK, who has caught the Hawaiian officials red handed in covering up vital facts of Obama’s birth records and his ineligibility for POTUS:

Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

Posted in Uncategorized on September 21, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

http://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/hawaii.jpg

I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)

Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.

I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).

click here for the complete article at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Obama: “I’ve pushed people on the idea of paying higher taxes in order to implement the system.”

Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, US Congress Legislation September 20, 2009 1 Comment

H/T Gateway Pundit:

In a speech he gave in April 2007 Obama said that health care reform “would require tax hikes” and that “savings are just a theory.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

“We Are Taking Our Country Back”

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Economy, Educational Material, Honoring Their Sacrifice, Honoring Their Service, In The News, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 12, 2009

A 9~12 message from Glenn Beck

Patrick Henry’s Peaceful Dissent

Those who were once united by the “Spirit of ’76,” or the Revolutionary generation, were not necessarily united in supporting the Constitution in 1787-88. We need only look to the state ratification debates to see the diversity of opinions regarding the new plan of government among faithful and once-united patriots. Acceptance of the Constitution was anything but a foregone conclusion.

Virginia patriot Patrick Henry, famous for his “give me liberty or give me death” speech which prompted Virginia (and eventually her sister states) to join besieged Massachusetts in the cause of independence, was one such devout Anti-Federalists, or one who opposed the new Constitution. His voice was often heard (and feared by Federalists) during the Virginia ratification debates.

Patrick Henry’s objections were not unfounded. After fighting off a British superpower, he feared a large national government with no declaration of rights to limit its power. He warned that if Virginia ratified, “the Republic may be lost forever,” and subsequently demanded to know “what right had [the delegates at Philadelphia] to say, We, the People.”

As the Virginia convention drew near a final vote on ratification, Henry stood to deliver his most impassioned soliloquy against the Constitution. He condemned an affirmative vote by saying it would negatively impact not just the fledging United States, but countries and even generations yet unborn but nonetheless present in the convention hall with the delegates in ethereal form.

“When I see beyond the horrison [sic.] that binds human eyes,” Henry began, “and look at the final consummation of all human things…I am led to believe that much of the account on one side or the other, will depend on what we now decide. Our own happiness alone is not affected by the event-All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race. Its adoption may involve the misery of the other hemispheres…”

Just as Henry finished his speech, a storm suddenly arose which combined with Henry’s rhetorical weaponry to have an eerie affect on his listeners. His final words were punctuated by thunder and lightning which “shook the whole building.”

Without calling for adjournment, the delegates—including such distinguished figures as George Washington, Governor Edmund Randolph, George Mason, James Monroe and James Madison—fled the convention hall. One listener explained why: “the spirits whom [Henry] had called, seemed to have come at his bidding.” Moreover, “[Henry] seemed to mix in the fight of his aetherial auxiliaries, and ‘rising on the wings of the tempest, to seize upon the artillery of Heaven, and direct its fiercest thunders against the heads of his adversaries.’”

Yet in spite of his vehement opposition, Patrick Henry demonstrated his commitment to the democratic process. Shortly after the Virginia Ratification Convention, he was approached by his Anti-Federalist colleagues to head a guerilla war against the ratified Constitution. Instead of continuing to oppose the Constitution outright, he declared “I will be a peaceable citizen.”

And he was. While Henry disagreed with some aspects of the new government, he also recognized that the Constitution left his head, hand, and heart free to advocate change “in a constitutional way.” He accepted the choice made by the American people and advocated for change within the system they had chosen. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, he ensured Virginia’s two U.S. Senators were Anti-Federalists, paving the way for the passage of the Bill of Rights.

ConSource logo

Obama to Appoint Former Lobbyist for ‘Slip & Fall” Lawyers to Study TORT Reform

Corruption, Educational Material, In The News, Media Blackout, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 12, 2009

In last night’s speech, Obama said that he would appoint Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary to look into TORT reform legislation. The problem with that idea:

Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius’s resume includes eight years as director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association

YEP, we now will have more ‘SLIP & FALL’ legislation you can believe in. Legislation written by the ones who wrote the original US Codified laws and have written every corrupt law in this land ever since. A lawyers guild that was deemed to be a Communist Organization in 1950.

The National Lawyers Guild, affiliated with the American Bar ( British Accredited Registry) Association with state lawyers guilds as branches operates much like ACORN and it’s many entities.

81st Congressional Record, National Lawyers Guild (the bulwark of the Communist Party)begins on page 23 of the congressional record (page 29 of the PDF file):

 

Within moments of me posting this, my document on SCRIBD suddenly became unavailable, however a good blogger always has back-up:

annualreportfory1950unit_bwcommunistlawyersguid

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE LAWYERS GUILD CONNECTION

Here is what happens. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain. The American Bar Association is not connected primarily with what happens in any case on the local level. However, when a case leaves the local level, by that is meant, the state court, city court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court; and goes to the appeal’s court, it would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of the case. It would seem that the American Bar Association must have an agreement that any action brought on appeal, must be reviewed by the American Bar Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would the American Bar Association, a branch of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothschild’s Dynasty, be able to monitor and administer the corporate bankruptcy. It would appear that the American Bar Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any case brought under common law or the constitutional law that would expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that “this case is not to be cited or published.” I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the stamp message in such cases. The justice department may be able to do that in Washington D.C.. I can’t see where any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or label the case as one not to be cited for future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.

100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS: An Abridged Chronology

1890 – New York state legislature passes first state act authorizing governor to appoint three commissioners. The American Bar Association (ABA)recommends that other states follow New York’s lead.

1891 – Connecticut’s Lyman D. Brewster named to chair newly-created ABA committee on uniform law. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Delaware appoint commissioners.

1892 – First conference held in Saratoga Springs New York. Above states plus Georgia attend formal meeting.

1893 – Committees appointed on such subjects as wills, marriage and divorce, commercial law, descent and distribution.

1895 – Conference requests committee on commercial law be formed. Drafts, Negotiable Instrument Law, precursor to Article 3 of Uniform Commercial Code.

1896 – Negotiable Instrument Law approved by Conference. First time that a uniform act is adopted in every state and the District of Columbia.

1897 – For the first time, Commissioners urged to work toward enactment of uniform legislation in their states.

1898/1899 – Sessions devoted to the consideration of proposed divorce legislation.

1899 – At the end of the 1890s, 33 of the existing 45 states and two territories had appointed uniform law commissioners and eight uniform acts had been drafted, each enacted in at least one state. All these acts were subsequently superseded or declared obsolete.

1900 – Uniform Divorce Procedure Act adopted. Louis B. Brandeis begins five years of service as member of Massachusetts commission.

1901 – Woodrow Wilson begins tenure (until 1908) as commissioner from New Jersey.

1903 – ABA makes first appropriation in support of work of Conference. James Barr Ames of Harvard Law School commissioned to draft the Uniform Partnership Act.

1905 – Samuel W. Pennypacker, Pennsylvania Governor, invites other governors to send delegation to a national divorce conference–meets twice in 1906; three acts endorsed.

1906 – First roll call by states as Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act is approved. Legal scholar Roscoe Pound serves for one year as a commissioner from Nebraska.

1907 – Uniform Desertion Act and Non-Support Act and Uniform Marriage Act authorized. Act Regulating Annulment of Marriage of Divorce adopted. Also, Act Providing for the Return of Marriage Statistics, Act Providing for the Return of Divorce Statistics.

1908 – Work begins on Uniform Corporation Act.

1910 – Twenty uniform acts approved in decade of the teens. The Uniform Partnership Act, begun in 1906, was completed by William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

1911 – Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and Uniform Child Labor Act approved.

1912 – Uniform Marriage Evasion Act adopted. Woodrow Wilson, commissioner from New Jersey from 1901 to 1908 elected U.S. President in a landslide.

1914 – Uniform Partnership Act completed. Will be adopted by all the states. Also Foreign Acknowledgement Act, Cold Storage Act, Workmens’s Compensation Act.

1915 – Name changed to National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Constitution and by-laws completely revised. Each act now must be considered section by section during at least two annual meetings.

1916 – Uniform Limited Partnership Act as well as Extradition of Persons of Unsound Minds Act approved, also Land Registration Act.

1917 – Uniform Flag Act approved.

1918 – Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act approved.

1920 – Certain Acts withdrawn; others declared obsolete. After pruning, 26 acts remain as recommended for passage in state legislatures.

1930 – During the 30s, Conference adopts 31 acts.

1935 – Conference entered into agreement with American Law Institute for cooperative drafting of acts in area of common interest.

1936 – After revisions, withdrawals and acts declared obsolete, 53 uniform acts remained as recommended for approval.

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning “COMMON LAW” in the federal government.

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws “to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives”, including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as “One Form of Action.” [See: Constitution and By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, see also Colorado Methods of Practice, West Publishing, Vol. 4, pages 2-3, Authors Comments.]

1939 – ABA gets more involved in approval of uniform law products. Thirty-nine acts are presented to the Board of Governors of the ABA for consideration and approval. During the same year, all acts on aeronautics and motor vehicles are eliminated as well as the Land Registration Act, Child Labor Act of 1930, Uniform Divorce Jurisdiction Act, Firearms Act, Marriage Act and more. Six acts are reclassified as Model acts.

1940 – At start of decade, after deletions, etc., 53 acts out of 93 which had been approved since the group’s founding remain on the books. Drafting committee for the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) approved.

1941 – Speaking of the Commercial Code project, the Conference president states: “….this is the most important and the most far reaching project on which the conference has ever embarked.” It would take the major part of the next 10 tear period to complete.

1942 – UCC effort begins in earnest with completion of work on the revised Uniform Sales Act.

1943 – Members of the conference participate in drafting committee in Washington, D.C. to work on legislation which the government might desire in connection with the war effort. No new acts.

1944 – Conference receives $150,000 grant from the Falk Foundation of Pittsburgh to support work on the UCC.

1945 – No annual meeting for the first time due to difficulties of civilian transport during the war.

1946 – Falk Foundation increases its support of the UCC with an additional $100,000.

1947 – Uniform Law Conference (ULC) and American Law Institute join in partnership to put all the components together for the UCC. Uniform Divorce Recognition Act approved.

1950 – Approval of the Uniform Marriage License Application Act, Uniform Adoption Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The latter has been one of the most successful ULC products.

1951 – On May 18, during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the UCC was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC’s signature product.

One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions), The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction.

America as a bankrupt nation is owned completely by its creditors.

The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments. Do you have a Birth Certificate? They own you too.

1952 – Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure approved—first venture of the Conference into this area of the law.

1953 – Pennsylvania the first state to enact the UCC. Uniform Rules of Evidence adopted.

1954 – Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act approved.

1956 – Gift to Minors Act approved. Will be adopted in every state. For the first time, ULC enters the field of international law.

1957 – Massachusetts becomes second state to enact the UCC, after revisions by the Editorial Board.

1958 – Uniform Securities Act approved.

1960 – Uniform Paternity Act passed. by 1960, UCC enacted in Kentucky, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

1961 – Permanent Editorial Board on the UCC formed—8 more states pass UCC. Constitution amended to provide that all members of Conference must be members of the bar.

1962 – Four more states adopt UCC, including New York. Probate Code project approved.

1963 – Third comprehensive law project approved, on retail installment sales, consumer credit, small loans and usury. Eleven more UCC states. William H. Renquist begins term as commissioner from Arizona; serves until 1968.

1964 – Special Committee of Uniform Divorce and Marriage laws recommends that a study of divorce law be authorized and that funds be sought. One more UCC state.

1965 – Divorce and Marriage Law committee instructed to commence drafting if funds can be obtained for the project. Thirteen more UCC states.

1966 – Five more UCC states.

1968 – Much of annual meeting devoted to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Uniform Probate Code —two projects nearing completion. By 1968, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the UCC—only exception being Louisiana. A big year. Other developments in 1968: the Consumer Credit Code is approved as well as revisions to the Anatomical Gift Act, Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and revisions to URESA.

1969 – Probate Code approved. Preliminary analysis of the uniform marriage and divorce legislation distributed.

1970 – Controlled Substances Act and Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act approved.

1971 – Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Act approved.

1972 – Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Disposition of Community Property Rights At Death Act and UMVARA, the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act approved.

1973 – Uniform Parentage Act supersedes Paternity Act. Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act approved.

1974 – Conference approves Rules of Criminal Procedure and Eminent Domain Code. Louisiana, the only state not to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code due to difficulties in reconciling its provisions with those of the Civil Code, adopts Articles 1,3,4,5,7, and 8.

1975 – Uniform Land Transactions Act approved.

1976 – Major revision of the Uniform Partnership Act approved; also Uniform Simplification of Land Transfers and Uniform Class Action Acts.

1978 – Uniform Brain Death and Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act approved.

1979 – Uniform Trade Secrets and Durable Power of Attorney acts among those approved.

1980 – Determination of Death Act supersedes 1978 Brain Death Act. Uniform Planned Community Act, Model Real Estate Time-Share Act and Model Periodic Payment of Judgments Act also adopted.

1981 – Two important updated acts approved: new Model State Administration Procedure and Unclaimed Property Acts. Also two new acts: the Model Real Estate Cooperative Act and the Uniform Conservation Easement Act.

1982 – Uniform Condominium and Planned Community Acts and Model Real Estate Cooperative Act combined into the Uniform Common Interest Ownership act.

The enumerated, specified, and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. This was the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between Actions At Law and Suits in Equity, this CHANGE WOULD ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY.” (See: Federal Rules of Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17. Also see Federalist Papers, No. 83, Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress, Oct. 14th, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms, July 16, 1775, Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)

1983 – Uniform Marital Property Act and Uniform Premarital agreement Act approved. Uniform Transfers to Minors Act replaces the uniformly enacted Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.

1984 – Uniform Statutory Will Act approved; new Uniform fraudulent Transfer Act supersedes Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1918.

1985 – Uniform Health-Care Information Act, Uniform Land Security Interest act, Uniform Personal Property Leasing Act and Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act approved.

1986 – New drafting effort to revise Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC and draft new provisions begins.

1987 – Approval of the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act approved as well as new Uniform Custodial Trust Act, Uniform Construction Lien Act and Uniform Franchise and Business Opportunities Act. Also revision of Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1988 – Final approval of amendments to the Uniform Securities Act and amendments to Article 6 of the UCC dealing with bulk sales. Conference also approves Uniform Statutory Form Power of Attorney Act and Uniform Punitive and Unknown Fathers Act and takes on the controversial issue of surrogate mother contracts with Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act.

1989 – Article 4A of the UCC, dealing with electronic funds transfers, approved. Also approved: amendments to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, authorizing withdrawal of life support by a surrogate decision maker; the Uniform Pretrial Detention Act, confining violent criminals before trial; the Uniform Non-probate Transfers on Death Act and amendments to Article VI of the Uniform Probate Code.

1990 – Major revision of 1970 Uniform Controlled Substances Act– the law in 46 jurisdictions– approved. Substantial revision of UCC Article 3 also approved, as well as an updated Article II of the Uniform Probate Code, to keep pace with current thinking on marital property.

This private corruption of the law has occurred despite the Constitutional responsibility conferred on Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution which states that it is Congress that “makes all Laws.”

 

What does that have to do with anything? Uniform Laws seem to be a good Idea.

 

Well now, that is a good question. Let us continue…..

 

An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans

THE COURTS RECOGNIZE ONLY TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY: DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS is very important to understand.

Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else government might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court. It is an equity court, administrating commercial law having a debtor-creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as defined by the Constitution of the United States or any other legal documents before 1938.

All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in ERIE V. THOMPKINS. I’ll give you background which led to this decision. There is a terrible FRAUD being perpetrated on all Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. It doesn’t just happen once in a while. This fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.

 

U.S. INC. GOES TO GENEVA 1930’s

In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception.

It goes like this: From 1928 -1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don’t publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt’s job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this doesn’t mean the bankruptcy wasn’t implemented before 1938 with the Erie vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as ‘The Banking Holiday,” and proceeded in pulling the gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 “Trading With The Enemy Act.”

 

ROOSEVELT STACKS SUPREME COURT

It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 – 1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.

There was resistance to Roosevelt’s court stacking efforts. Some of the justices tried to warn us that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land. See also The UCC Connection

 

THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES GOES BANKRUPT

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the headquarters of the corporation called “The United States”).

Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn’t have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: the liberty of using the term “Mother Corporation” to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States has been taken.

It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her “Creators”, the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: “United States”, “U.S.”, “U.S.A.”, “United States of America”, Washington D.C., District of Columbia, Feds. and Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office etc. etc. etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the IRS. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide projects, including war.

War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people in her new world order.

 

THE U.S. INC. DECLARES BANKRUPTCY

The corporate U.S. then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto, BANKRUPTCY was declared for all!

From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states could then rely on the Federal decision and use this decision within the states as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states.

 

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE EMERGES AS LAW OF THE LAND
Ah, Ha, are you beginning to get the picture?

By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be upheld and administered. That’s why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedent, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie vs. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th Edition:

“The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966”

The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1938 and 1940, I don’t recall, but by the early 40’s and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and getting it ready to go on the market. The UCC is the Law Merchant’s code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts, and the whole mess under the UCC. That’s where the “Uniform” word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia.

It doesn’t mean you didn’t have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960’s, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the Law of the Land. The states fully understood they had to administrate Bankruptcy. Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks after President John F. Kennedy was killed.

 

YOUR LAWYER’S SECRET OATH???

What was the effect and the significance of Erie vs. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers, who are members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer’s guild of Great Britain, created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain.

Since the Erie vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same. It has been reported, that every lawyer in existence, and every lawyer coming up has to take a “secret” oath to support bankruptcy(Article 61 of the UN Constitution). As Officers of the Court they have sworn to uphold the law as it exists, and as they have been taught. In so doing, not only do the lawyers promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges promise never to reveal who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings (if, indeed, many of them are even aware or know). In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principle of the proceedings. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, then there is no way the defendant is able to know the TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information.

That’s why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will tell you “It’s not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can’t give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer.”

 

 

Government Funded “CHILD” Prostitution Via ACORN

Action Item, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, In The News, Media Blackout, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 10, 2009

This is absolutely appalling. ACORN gets busted in a sting that exposes their involvement in child prostitution. CALL YOUR REPS TODAY and DEMAND an immediate investigation and the immediate HALT of ALL tax payer dollars to ALL ACORN AFFILIATES!

REMEMBER:  ACORN now has been given direct involvement in the census, thus, this proves without a shadow of a doubt we will no longer have fair and free elections if the current administration and their cronies at ACORN are allowed to continue in their take over of the census. Obama cut his proverbial “community organizing baby teeth” through this corrupt crime syndicate and during the campaign, he promised them that they would have the inside track to the white house and a strong say in how government operates if they got him elected. They did not let him down and now he is paying back that debt.

Americans Sold Into Slavery, The History of the Federal Reserve

Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, Youth Educational Material September 3, 2009

I wish to thank my new kindred patriots at AIB Radio on talkshoe.com. You have opened my eyes to the true corruption of our government. Through your decades of dedication, fact finding and study of history & law, all Americans now have the opportunity to see for themselves, what you have brought to me and with that, I share with my readers the 1st installment.

Special thanks to Jeanette at AIB for steering me onto this great work written by Australian, James Franklin Montgomery

America is there any hope of your waking up, why must you be hit over the head over and over with truth? Still you make bogus claims in the courts, just to have the judges admonish you for your foolishness? Do you have to go to jail before you say “Damn, something is not right here, things are not as they appear, black is white, white is black”? As long as you don’t know the enemy, nor the weapons used against you in this warfare, how in God’s name do you think anything will change? Much of America, the Christians are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back and take care of the problem. Christians unless you can figure a way to force Christ off His Throne, before His enemies are destroyed, thereby forcing Him to violate His Word, you are going to have a very long wait, and continue to go down the crapper while you wait. Why the strong admonishment, because I’m tired of America accepting a lie, to acquiesce for the easiest path, rather than facing up to the facts of their legal and financial enslavement, because only when you face up to a problem will you do anything about it. As long as you wish to accept voluntary slavery, which is legal, the remedy will never be learned or used. I have said all the above to say this, there is a way to change this, and I am not talking of armed rebellion or insurrection. In fact, it is the only way of reaching the level of freedom we seek, and what we have a right to demand, thereby removing the yokes from around our necks. The answer does not lie in a civil remedy, as I stated several times above in dealing with mans physical attempts to do it his way. Our Freedom has to do with a Trust granted by our Father in Heaven, I am working on a short paper, that will explain how we can regain our freedom through His knowledge, thereby exercising our rights provided in our Trust, as the legitimate heirs of Christ’s Kingdom, the neat thing is, just as with the worldly kings system, no one has access to our Trust, except the heirs of Christ, until then keep the faith.

A Country Defeated in Victory — Part I

To understand the title of this paper you must be made aware that the country I refer to is the United States. Very few Americans are aware of the defeat of which I am obliged to inform you. President Lincoln very wisely said and, I might add, correctly, that:-

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher.”1

Thomas Jefferson said:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”2

These patriarch’s of our country understood the dangers of banking and the men that controlled the banking institutions. The enemy that defeated this country from the very beginning was the debt created by the use of paper money instead of gold and silver coin. The use of differing weights and measures caused this country to fall prey to the international bankers. Prior to the Constitution being written the States printed paper money to finance the Revolutionary War. At the end of the war the new United States found itself bankrupted by a huge debt. Our forefathers made it clear because of their experience and those of other countries that we should never use paper money again.

Click For The Full Expose’ of “A Country Defeated in Victory”

Breaking News: The Media is Challenged

Action Item, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda August 29, 2009

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Breaking News: The Media is Challenged“, posted with vodpod

 

This video was created by Pixel Patriot

Pixel Patriot has a great collection of videos!

Challenge: Define Natural Born Citizen
Exposé detailing how the media is complicit in withholding information about the fraudulent corrupt actions of Barack Hussein Obama AKA Barry Soetoro, the DNC, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean prior to the 2008 Presidential election and continuing today! This is a cover up with monumental consequences.
‘Breaking News: The Media is Challenged’ discloses breaking news about a petition filed in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA seeking a remedy by the convening of a Federal Grand Jury. View this Petition to convene a Federal Grand Jury http://www.phnmedia.com.

This Video is Produced by Pixel Patriot, and features Carl Swensson, Foreman for Georgia’s Citizen Grand Jury (www.RiseUpForAmerica.com) and Patriots Heart Network ( http://www.phnmedia.com and http://www.phnmedia.net.) Listen for the Radio Shows discussing this on Patriot’s Heart Network!

Twitter: patriotsheart Hash Tags: PHNM and DNBC Please add our Twitter Pic to your profile while we wait for the court’s response to the petition to convene a Federal Grand Jury to investigate this critical constitutional crisis!

This video is part of a joint campaign between RiseUpForAmerica.com and PHNMedia.com, calling out to the Media and to all elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution to DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Citizens, if you are not informed, it is time to become informed and to hold elected officials and the media accountable to Define Natural Born Citizen and then to explain why we have a unconstitutional Presidency.

What are the consequences? If Obama is a Usurper as we believe, all Government returns to January 19, 2008. We will have a new election in 2010!

AND NO ONE IS DISCUSSING THIS?

In The Eyes Of Our Founding Fathers

Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Youth Educational Material August 27, 2009

Let us not lose sight of common sense:

 
Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). In other words, Obama has been a life-long British citizen to the present and a Kenyan citizen from age 2 to 21. It should also be noted that Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship because he renounced it but only because the Kenyan Constitution caused him to lose it. This is important given that with citizenship and allegiance, affirmative acts and results should count more than those to which we default. Also, Obama’s political acts in Kenya as a U.S. Senator and the title and picture on the cover of his book, Dreams from My Father, show something about where his heart is.

The Founders allowed one to be President at age 35. Not only has Obama had multiple citizenships and allegiance for his whole life, but has had them during his formative years (British from birth to 21 and which continues to date and Kenyan from 2 to 21). Additionally, using 35 as a benchmark, that would make Obama a British citizen for his whole life as he is still today (35 out of 35) and a Kenyan citizen for 54 percent of a 35-year life (19 out of 35).

In the eyes of our Founders, can their “natural born Citizen” clause include someone of Obama’s citizenship and allegiance background? The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States and who has had multiple citizenships and allegiances for most of his life to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military.

The Law of Nations as U.S. Federal Common Law and Not English Common Law Defines What an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Is

Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, Youth Educational Material August 27, 2009

“Unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831

Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated with the English common law and those connected with American national citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather used the law of nations for that purpose.

To the extent that the English common law was relied upon in the colonies and States, that law was at the time that the Constitution was adopted “to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of the States by which the Constitution was adopted.” The English common law would, however, be applied to determine questions of citizenship only if the written law was silent, i.e., there was no statute or federal or state court decision on the subject. Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders displaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.

The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-known by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). There are other numerous authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even William Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered “universal law” and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the “civilized world.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law of the United States.

The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700(1900).

We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon E. Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. The Founders knew that the law of nations as per Vattel defined a “citizen” simply as any member of society. They also knew that a “natural born Citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. It should be noted that during the Founding and throughout American history, there has always been a distinction between a general “citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born citizen” on the other. The law of nations did not make any specific requirements for one to be a “citizen” of a nation, for such a person was basically just a member of the civil society. Before and after the revolution, the Founders considered anyone who resided in the colonies or States and who adhered to the revolutionary cause to be a “citizen,” regardless of place of birth or condition of the parents. But the law of nations did provide for a strict definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., the child born in the country of citizen parents. And the Founders also adopted that stricter definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied only to one wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

The Founders also understood what “natural allegiance” was. They knew that “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) They understood that an English “natural born subject” residing out of the kingdom or jurisdiction of the king still owed allegiance to the king of England. Id. Hence, they understood that “natural allegiance” or “allegiance by birth” does not depend upon locality or place; that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot, therefore, be confined within any certain boundaries. . .” Ludham, 26 N.Y. at 363. They understood that natural allegiance or allegiance by birth did not depend upon boundaries or place but rather upon parentage. Id. at 364. The Founders understood that “as long as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.” Id. at 365. Finally, the Founders also understood that even though a child may be born on U.S. soil, if he was born of a British father, the Crown of England owed that child the same protection that it owed the father. Id. at 370-71.

Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. Great Britain did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen- parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Founders understood and which Lord Coke confirmed did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance. Rather, this test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child.

The Founders knew that the States had their own laws on how they defined citizens and how they naturalized aliens. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 791 (1866). They also knew that these laws were not uniform. The Founders in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 gave Congress the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. The Founders also wanted a uniform definition of “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of U.S. national law.

Further proof that the Founders in defining citizenship did not accept English common law but rather the law of nations which was based on natural law can be found in the Congressional debates concerning the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. When commenting on the proposed amendment on May 30, 1866, Senator Howard said:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. The doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow, in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, is founded on natural law. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 368. Note that Senator Howard said that the amendment was only declaratory of “natural law” which became “national law” which in turn became the “law of the land.” The Senator is telling us that citizenship was defined by federal law which under Article VI of the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. He did not refer to any British common law or individual state law as being the basis for how citizenship was defined. Rather, his reference to “natural law” connects to the law of nations which was based on “natural law.” And the law of nations, as incorporated into the laws of the new Republic, did become the new national law of the United States. Moreover, in providing the list of those parents who would disqualify children born on U.S. territory from becoming a citizen, Senator Howard included parents who were foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers. Note that the list included “foreigners” and “aliens.” Hence, the exclusion was not only for the children of ambassadors and enemy aliens, as was the rule of the English common law, but also for the children of “foreigners” and “aliens.” This exclusion was also repeated by Senator Johnson who stated that the child would have to be born on U.S. soil to “parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. The English common law did not use the concept of “natural born subject” as a means to protect the head of the military and civilian government of Great Britain from foreign influence. Rather, the British were very liberal in granting “natural born subject” status so as to create for its monarchy-based empire as many subjects as possible. We saw an extreme of this policy when Great Britain insisted on impressing American sailors into its military which practice lead to the War of 1812. But John Jay, in writing to General George Washington on July 25, 1787, was very specific that the Commander in Chief of the military would have to be a “natural born citizen” (underlining born in the original) so as to assure that no foreigner would hold that office. The Founders accepted Jay’s recommendation and included in Article II the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Americans were very cautious in granting “natural born Citizen” status because they had a democratically elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and representative form of government which they needed to protect from foreign influence. This was consistent with the law of nations.

The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic. But we know that the Founders considered a naturalized citizen to be only a “citizen” (able to be President under Article II’s grandfather clause and Senator or Representative under Article I) and not a “natural born Citizen” (which status was required of a would-be President for births after 1789). This was consistent with the law of nations. The 14th Amendment also made the same recognition. Not being a “natural born Citizen,” the Founders did not permit naturalized citizens to be President. But again, the Framers, after 1789 (when the grandfather clause expired and Article II required a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “citizen”) would not have allowed such children to be President, for they would have been naturalized “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.”

English common law did not distinguish between “natural born subject” and “subject.” The Founders, the framers of the 14th Amendment, all Congresses in their Acts, and virtually all courts in their decisions have treated “natural born Citizen” and “citizen,” as two separate and distinct terms. This dichotomy is consistent with the law of nations which did make such a distinction. This distinction shows that “citizens” could be created by the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts but an Article II “natural born Citizens” could only be created by satisfying the natural law standard as expressed in the law of nations (place of birth and parentage).

Unless they were ambassadors/diplomats or alien enemies, the English common law considered irrelevant the citizenship of the child’s parents when determining whether a child born on English soil was a “natural born subject.” The Founders knew from the law of nations that in England, the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, Sec. 214. This would have been consistent with the monarchy’s desire to make as many “natural born subjects” as possible for its growing empire. The U.S. common law went beyond these two exceptions and did consider relevant the condition of the child’s parents when determining whether the child was to be afforded U.S. citizenship at birth. See the cases cited above. Under the law of nations, such a child born in the country to foreign parents was considered to have been naturalized under English law. But again, the Framers would not have allowed such a naturalized child to be considered a “natural born Citizen,” for they permitted the latter to be President but not the former. The maxim that was applied in this connection is recognized in the law of nations and was partus sequitur patrem (the child follows the condition of the father). Shanks v. Dupont, Barry v. Mercein, 46 U.S. 103 (1847); Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 376; Ex parte Reynolds, and United States v. Ward.

The English common law had no concern for whether a person consented to be declared a “natural born subject.” This phenomenon was made much worse by the British not allowing any “natural born subjects” to expatriate and forcing them to be bound to the King for life through their perpetual natural allegiance. The English common law provided for perpetual natural allegiance which a subject could never renounce (once a British subject always a British subject). The English common law did not allow for a “natural born subject” to elect upon becoming of age another citizenship. English common law did not recognize a “natural born subject” as losing his or her allegiance to the King through the act of naturalizing in another country. But U.S. common law and statutes provided that an alien or U.S. citizen could expatriate and become a different citizen from that which he/she was born. For the Founders, consent was the foundation of citizenship. It was through that consent that the Founders expected U.S. citizens to give their absolute and sole allegiance to the U.S. This consent which was expressed as a transfer of allegiance to the U.S. was also critical to an alien becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. It was expatriation that allowed foreigners to come to America, naturalize, and procreate a child on U.S. soil, which allowed that child to be born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and eligible to be President. The Founders’ knowledge of consent as the basis for citizenship and acceptance of expatriation and election of citizenship upon becoming of age, had their source in the law of nations and not in the English common law which did not involve itself with these concepts.

While the English common law recognized that “the king cannot reckon upon the full and absolute obedience” of persons who were either born with or voluntarily chose to have a dual allegiance, the English were not concerned in the least that their notion of “natural born subject” created, in not taking into consideration the citizenship of the child’s parents, dual allegiance problems. Reeve, History of the English Law. But American courts recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents had double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). America even went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to 14th Amendment American “citizens” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. Please note that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, we could not place at risk the survival our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were 14th Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power. Can we just imagine what would have happened if President and Commander in Chief Truman would have been a 14th Amendment “citizen” with Japanese parents. To be consistent, I guess our nation would have had to place him in a concentration camp too with the rest of the other 14th Amendment citizens of Japanese descent. Would our hypothetical President Truman have dropped the bomb on Japan? Would he have if his Japanese parents lived in Japan?

Pre-revolutionary English statutes that provided that the foreign born children of British “natural born subjects” were deemed “natural born subjects” did not require that the parents had to reside in Great Britain at or prior to the time of the child’s birth. U.S. statutes, on the contrary, required that the father had to be a resident of the U.S. at the time of the child’s birth in order for the father to be able to transmit his U.S. citizenship to his foreign born child. These statutes also attached importance to when the child was born, for they were made only retrospective until changed many years later. The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be “natural born Citizens,” and later in the Naturalization Act of 1795 just “citizens,” but only retrospectively. It was not until the act in 1885 that Congress declared these foreign-born children to be “citizens,” both retrospectively and prospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). Hence, U.S. law, in these foreign born children cases, attached just as much importance to the actual U.S. residence of the father and when the child was born than it did to the foreign born child descending from the U.S. citizen parents. Also, American statutes considered these children only “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.” This limitation was contrary to the English statutes which deemed these children “natural born subjects.” As an aside, consider that the Senate in formulating Resolution 511 relied in part upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 to declare McCain a “natural born Citizen.” This was error for two reasons: (1) the act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the “natural born” language and just kept in “citizen;” and (2) Congress declared the foreign born children of U.S. citizens to be “natural born Citizen” only retrospectively. In other words, only those children already born at that time were so declared, not children to be born in the future like McCain.

That Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark was willing to disregard the correct meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” and make Wong a U.S. citizen does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), under the unique facts of that case and by disregarding well-established case law and the 14th Amendment’s and Civil Rights Act of 1866’s framers’ intent and clear instructions on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

Hence, we can see that it is not reasonable to maintain that the meaning of “natural born Citizen” can be found in the English common law. Rather, that definition may be found in the law of nations as commented on by E. Vattel. All aspects of the citizenship laws during the Founding era and the adoption of the 14th Amendment were consistent with the law of nation’s definition of citizenship.

It was also the law of nations that defined a “natural born citizen” as one that is born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which became incorporated into federal common law and which Obama cannot satisfy because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen by descent when he was born. Obama’s British citizenship, which continues in effect today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21. Obama is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

**************************************************************************************************************************** 

Daniel 5: 21-24  ~  “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed.  After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

 

They Call Themselves the ‘UNDEAD REVOLUTION’

Action Item, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Educational Material, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material August 25, 2009

New information in from Leo Donofrio has exploded even further the constitutional claims Obama makes to be eligible to be POTUS. It has and will continue to be a fight with the liberal progressives who actually believe that British common law is the core to our constitution. So with that, the fight to win this ‘Revolution’ goes on and the ‘Constitutional’ team has just scored a major ‘Win’ against her opponent in the battle over ‘Interpreting the US Constitution and the framers intent’. 

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.  But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times.  But that’s exactly what has happened this week.  A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.  They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

(snip)

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds.  It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884.  The American Law Review was a premier legal journal –  the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

This was not a law school publication.  It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq.  Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association.  His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

The article I am excited to bring you is titled:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike.  I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

Leo’s article takes down these  myths that you frequently hear from Obama supporters and expounds on the importance of our national security and the requirement of a president to have ‘Double Allegiance’ to the United States, commonly referred to as ‘Complete Allegiance’ as in ‘there shall be no room for dual allegiance’ in the office of the executive, except at the time of the adoption of this constitution. The permission of naturalized (dual) ctizens into the office of the executive is an exception and soon will be rendered ‘wholly extinct’.

MYTH #1:  Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

MYTH #4:  Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

Additionally, let us also continue our jouney into the minds of the framers. In researching the history of Joseph Story, his references frequently referred me to Justice James Wilson who was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington in 1789. Wilson was also one of the more influential delegates at the Constitutional Convention and in Wilson’s Works Volume 1 ( Published in Philadelphia in 1804), Wilson writes in depth about the Laws of Nature, as well as the Laws of Nations, and how they pertain to the Constitution of the United States. Here are a few excepts, from the works of Wilson, that are sure to strike some intrigue in your educational taste-buds:

“It is high time that the law should be rescued from this injurious imputation. Like other sciences, it should enjoy the advantages of the light, which have resulted from the resurrection of letters; for, like the other sciences, it has suffered extremely from the thick veil of mystery spread over it in the dark and scholastick ages.” 

“The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The states of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation.” (snip) “In the United States, a system of republicks, the law of nations acquires an importance still more peculiar and distinguished. In the United States, the law of nations, operates upon peculiar relations, and upon those relations with peculiar energy.” (snip) “The law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations, as well as the law of nature is of origin divine.”

With every turn of the page, with every click to a new historical document we find that, there is so much more to learn as we continue to dive into this great Constitution of ours and its rich history. Wilson, being one of the ‘original’ Supreme Court justices as well as a major voice on drafting the constitution will definitely have more to say in coming posts. Until then, I encourage you to visit the links within this article and be sure to study up at Leo’s site as well.

Click to continue reading today’s Expose’ of Leo and his team of ‘Undead Revolutionists’