Printable View
Greetings:
Please review the attached file
It seems to offer a great explannation of history and how things became the way they are.
Lately I have been confused as to whether it might be better to claim to be One of the People of the Constitution or to avoid that contract and act as if I was a natural born human with all those rights already.
Eros
Attachment 1436
Here is an excerpt from Albert's Book, The greatest Story Never Told. It seems the opposite of the Silver Bulletin.
The FSIA was passed to provide remedy for those whom have a Right to an Article III hearing. Under its grant of authority, Congress was required to provide for remedy for the sovereign American People under threat of Treason. After some 40 year in the wilderness, Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 as revised in 1996 [“FSIA”]. For the first time since the bankruptcy of 1933, one of the sovereign American People was provided with a reasonable vehicle through which he could receive remedy from the trust; and, the remedy could be achieved in a court close to his place of abode. In essence, the FSIA is a codification of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution; and, was passed by Congress so that judges in courts of code could hear the immunity bestowed under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, thereby keeping said code judges out of Treason to the Constitution. I realize that it is hard to understand how the FSIA could provide any remedy against the trust to an American, because it, like most other laws and codes, was written in a manner intended to hide its true purpose [to protect the Congress from a charge of Treason].
The reason that the FSIA can be used without taking a benefit from the code, thereby owing consideration, is that it is exculpatory in nature. Use of it takes one out of the code entirely. It simply states that there is no authority to bind this sovereign to the code or its jurisdiction.
Many of you will have difficulty with the terms used in the FSIA with relation to yourself. For instance, to take advantage of this FSIA, you must first be a “foreign state”. How many that reading this book believe that they are a foreign state? I know I didn’t.
Here again, we must visit the Act itself to figure out exactly what the term “foreign state” means in relation to the FSIA. The FSIA is codified at Title 28, Sections 1602-1611. First, we need to understand Title 28 Section 1603, which states:
For purposes of this chapter –
(e) A ‘foreign state’, except as used in section 1608 of this
title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in
subsection (b).
(b) An ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state’ means any
entity –
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,
and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other
ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United
States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title,
nor created under the laws of any third country.
(c) The ‘United States’ includes all territory and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
(d) A ‘commercial activity’ means either a regular course of
commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or
act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined
by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular
transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
(e) A ‘commercial activity carried on in the United States by a
foreign state’ means commercial activity carried on by such state
and having substantial contact with the United States.
So, Eros, are you a 'foreign state'? Seems you could control the NAME, which is itself a legal person, corporate, and as such the NAME is an organ owned by a foreign state (you the natural person), but you are a citizen of a State of the United States, so the confluence of you/the NAME is in fact not 'foreign' under this definition at 28 USC 1603(b)(3). So who exactly is the FSIA really aimed at protecting?
It would seem that (e)8 of the First Judicial Act of 1789 already gives a 'native sovereign' the absolute right to an Article III hearing. The issue is clarified in the last pages of the Silver Bulletin you cited: the state, acting through an Article I court, has no jurisdiction for violation of most Enactments (Municipal laws), as Article I courts administer contract law under rules of the Uniform Commercial Code. Such courts lack constitutional protections, and they bring up serious concerns about separation of powers. That is how we got this Supreme Court ruling: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)
Freed,
Albert s idea is that the framers and thereafter have and do RULE the land. This is evident as such you have to make a claim to the posterity of the CONstitution or you have NO standing as you are conquered. If you make the claim , then at least you have the Constitution to stand on. I am not sure about the State vs state citizen, but it would appear to me that if you make the claim you are the latter, therefore you would be a foreign State to the US Government and thus they legislated this as a remedy.
Thanks for the reply. I am looking for the silver bullet and the answer is still vary hard to find. I have not really looked at the acts you mention, but would say that are these acts still enforced? I cannot really venture into a court and argue jurisdiction as the very same thing happens every time, contempt. Maybe the best version is a hybrid of not appearing after arraignment but by proxy (agent) and doing a style of LOR. If I venture into a court and mention the things you say the judge will just push on to a motions hearing or contempt order. Look at a guy like Bill Thornton who is really frustrated and can get no relief for the most part by using Common Law pleadings. If the man appears then he will concede jurisdiction no matter the circumstance as no court will overturn, or if they have please show the cite?
I like Albert's approach here and Albert claims his approach works by immediately filing an interlocutory appeal and bumping to the federal level. In any case as much as I like the approach, Albert is in South America due to his many run ins with the courts.
Freed,
Albert s idea is that the framers and thereafter have and do RULE the land. This is evident as such you have to make a claim to the posterity of the CONstitution or you have NO standing as you are conquered. If you make the claim , then at least you have the Constitution to stand on. I am not sure about the State vs state citizen, but it would appear to me that if you make the claim you are the latter, therefore you would be a foreign State to the US Government and thus they legislated this as a remedy.
Thanks for the reply. I am looking for the silver bullet and the answer is still vary hard to find. I have not really looked at the acts you mention, but would say that are these acts still enforced? I cannot really venture into a court and argue jurisdiction as the very same thing happens every time, contempt. Maybe the best version is a hybrid of not appearing after arraignment but by proxy (agent) and doing a style of LOR. If I venture into a court and mention the things you say the judge will just push on to a motions hearing or contempt order. Look at a guy like Bill Thornton who is really frustrated and can get no relief for the most part by using Common Law pleadings. If the man appears then he will concede jurisdiction no matter the circumstance as no court will overturn, or if they have please show the cite?
I like Albert's approach here and Albert claims his approach works by immediately filing an interlocutory appeal and bumping to the federal level. In any case as much as I like the approach, Albert is in South America due to his many run ins with the courts.
My gut tells me this is a fake debate (2 personas from the same camp). So I'll just weigh in to say ... the nearest I've found to The Silver Bullet is the lesson plan David offers here.
1) Redeem lawful money (I've personally seen this stop the IRS cold)
2) Learn your identity (is not the U.S. person)
3) Start keeping the record
Please note, Eros, that the Constitution does not apply to natural persons, whether they are original signers or not (look at Article 6 to see who the Constitution applies to - THE PEOPLE are not mentioned). The Constitution is a job description for the government, mostly designed to tell government officials what they are not allowed to do; its purpose is to clearly limit what powers THE PEOPLE are willing to let the government apply. It is clear that THE PEOPLE are foreign to the Federal government, because it is a corporation, while the natural persons are just that, natural, not legal fictions. No fictional entity can have jurisdictional authority over a natural person - that is why we have trial by jury; only other natural persons can hold that power. Once you understand the concept that the natural persons are sovereigns, you can see that they do not consent to allowing fictional entities to have jurisdiction over them. Evidence of the behavior of politicians and crooked lawyers (redundant?) since then shows that this is a conservative position. Because of this disconnect (corporations can only deal with other corporations) the New Deal moved the (Article I) courts towards the vague concept of "public good,' and created the public trust under the Bankruptcy Act of 1933, to create this corporate citizen under the 14th Amendment. Now the state can have jurisdiction over this corporate person, and by implied consent, can make the natural person pay for the corporate person's transgressions, which were not transgressions under common law. Thus on another thread we are discussing how a natural man goes to jail for fishing without a license. Under the Constitution, no one needed a license to fish, but busy lawyers have created this vast skein of 'law,' almost all of it contrary to common law, which now allows the state to substitute its judgement for that of natural persons. btw, the Magna Carta was specifically designed to limit the monarch in that laws counter to common law could not be enacted. Ever since then, lawyers have worked assiduously to destroy that limitation on state power, and the Straw Man strategy, which is borrowed from Roman law, is the solution they have adopted. The Romans traded in slaves, and they would create a trust/corporation/legal fiction entity, whose only asset was the slave's body, and then trade this contract like we would trade a share of stock. The 14th Amendment recreated this possibility, establishing a corporate trust which contains all the assets of the natural person, including his body and all his future earnings, and made this entity an employee of the company store. Now 'rules' written by the corporation apply to this entity, and by inference, also now apply to the natural person, if that person does not realize that he has been sold into voluntary slavery. The redemption remedy we discuss on this blog refers to the process of un-volunteering to be a slave.
ps to JC: where is the fake debate? I merely call bs on Eros' position that FISA has anything to do with establishing the right to an Article III hearing for American natives. Nowhere have I said that any strategy other than the one outlined by DM should be attempted. Everything I have explained above goes directly to your premise #2, learn your identity, and how confusion about your identity causes you to be treated live a slave.
ps to Eros: Rule e(8) of the First Judicial Act of 1789 gives all natural citizens the right to appear in an Article III court at any time, and to enter evidence into the record, and thus to be their own court of record. Evidence entered into the record and not refuted becomes fact, and default judgement is self-executing, thus no judge or jury is needed.
by applying to your master for relief are you not in fact admitting he is your master. Absent agreement they have no juridiction, except what you have voluntarily given. Due to a variety of factors, such as age, lack of disclosure what you have given can be revoked, with out applying to your master.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'applying to your master.' The Article III courts are designed for natural persons to use to defend themselves against agents of the federal government. The courts are not your master; they are tools that can be used to protect your freedom from harassment by official agents.
If by 'what you have given' you are referring to your status as a 14th Amendment citizen, yes, that can be revoked, using only UCC 1-207, but the claim/statement that you are revoking your voluntary slave status must be made to those who presume it. I would not call that 'applying to your master,' more like setting the record straight, or in this particular case, denying that a contract exists, since it was obtained by fraud, ie, there was no knowing, voluntary surrender of rights.