Republic of Missouri, The CHANGE Your Founders Believed In
Note: This video was recorded live on 1/15/11 since then some things have
changed and there are some errors.
For more information contact your Republic at link below
http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org/contact/
There are a lot of unfounded assertions made about funded birth certificates.
Watch a couple minutes from (click) here. There are no such Supreme Court cases! However, from watching ten minutes of this ambassador for a non-extant republic, I discern that he has built a plausible but inaccurate scenario to explain central banking and the simple remedy that really does exist; §16 of the Fed Act at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 -
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...
It in fact says the same thing in that simple remedy as this fellow lectures about, without the elaborations and misdirection. Like with the verbiage I have been suggesting Motla68's CR crew might eliminate - why restrict the coupon/remittance be redeemed at the Treasury? It is redeemable at any bank around!
The common denominator for all the success stories, whether taxes, traffic tickets or withholdings on the W-4 is the demand for lawful money. And the fellow in the video is explaining away how people sign their substance to the central bank of the US (the Fed) without ever actually signing the endorsement for private credit. Frustrating!
It functions exactly as the fellow is describing but it stands upon the consent of every Signature Authorization on that naked contract we have all, including him, been conditioned to never, ever question - endorsement on the backside of our paychecks.
I have quite a bit of information about the Republics and a lot of it is on Google Docs. These people are great people but out of desperation the President - James Timothy TURNER has been pressured into keeping it going on lies about funding and military and foreign nations supporting RAP/RuSA. I can expose all the lies and it still does nothing to defeat the simple truth that these are all good people exploring and pursuing an American ideal of restoring America to a pre-1861 state of constitutional republic.
There is something that I would like to get verified about what this fellow says in the earlier parts of his presentation - about the Seventy Year Contract of Abe LINCOLN. There is a rumor, based in legislature that the US Treasury was abolished in 1921. That timeframe roughly would to 1931 be the seventy-year timeline alright. Of course the US Treasury still exists but the rumor is based on some major restructuring of the Treasury and that hit home for me how great it would be, to sit this guy down in the federal respository for six hours and pick apart any citations he might have picked up on the way researching. There is about 200 pages of Congressional Globe appendix in 1861 of things that were going on during that timeframe - the 100 days of government shutdown between March 28 and July 4. I may have to sit down myself and read through that one day soon.
Mainly about RAP/RuSA - they put no emphasis on the remedy that exists, and way too much emphasis on the US Government being a corporation. As it was pointed out to me recently, governments are corporations and the body politic is the People who organize the Constitutional Republic. The US Government was a corporation from the get go and it extended out of Washington as early as 1789 with the formation of the state districts in the same Judiciary Act we find Remedy - the 'saving to suitors' clause. In order for a government to sue, and enter into contract and even to be sued it has to take on the characteristics of a corporation. The municipality, city of Washington, District of Columbia became a formal municipal corporation in 1871 but that is not the federal government. It is a municipal corporation with a city council and such, just like any other city in America, not one official face in the Obama Administration.
This is a fine example of how elaborate constructing remedy gets when you missed the simplicity of the remedy that is already there!
The fellow makes some good points about full disclosure. I did not hear one word about "Tim Turner" in the snippet I have bothered with. Most of these folks are struggling with the fact that Tim has been lying in order to hold the Republics together and there is a faction in the South that has even formed (at least in their own minds) as a separatist republic so to speak. [Important: Standing upon the same Constitution, the concept is self-defeating because of Article IV - these republics cannot form a state within their state without the consent of the State and Congress both. Ergo my assertion that these folks don't actually exist at all; except of course you see a Denny's waitress push in past the lecturer to respectfully fill a delicious looking Order.]
My suspicions are that my amicus curiae for one of Tim's victims is effective and the USA is going to push for one more extension for about another thirty days and then make no objection if the Tenth Circuit justices recommend he be released from prison. That would explain why they sought the extension - to keep Ron in the prison as long as they could. That is just a guess though. This paper actually captures quite a bit of RAP/RuSA history but is by no means comprehensive. What Tim taught prior to RAP though was a negative averment lien process in admiralty. Reading the amicus curiae you may discern my belief that by Tim not disclosing he had released his own liens with the Alabama SoS to Ron, Ron had false confidence in negative averment process recusing the federal judge in his own prosecution - which heavily affected his defense.
One thing important, before you begin is to understand the basic rule of amicus curiae is that the clerk of court cannot file it without consent from both parties and leave of the court unless it comes from a territory, state or Washington DC:
What I am telling you in a nutshell, is that I am already there, where these people want to be - simply by understanding the remedy there for everybody. I am there with you and all the others... people are obviously not dead corporation/persons.
This is the Filed doc.
This rendition hopefully has a full barrage of active links.
I have spent several hours with the Colorado Republic's spokesman (owns the donated server) and toured the federal repository with him. I have been keeping an accurate lens on this Movement - albeit in my my opinion, it is non-extant politically. However the people and their intent, once equipped with the simplicity of the Remedy might become quite a force overnight by redeeming lawful money!
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill; 04-25-11 at 12:41 PM.
A few months back Gov Ritter (and all the governors) received a letter stating "...if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security."
It's probably the same group?
I did like the way he put together the timeline. I had all the pieces, but didn't have them in order because I'd learn about one here and then one there.
Thanks for adding to the post...
Two major red flags about this guy's presentation (besides NO mention of remedy through redemption/demand for lawful money):
1) Give us your "red thumb" and "swear an oath"
2) Give us your FULL name that "mommy and daddy gave you".
Either this guy is a clueless, yet "useful idiot" for the controllers of the system and trust machination or he knows good and well what he is doing, and intentionally omitting, so as to further entrap even more unwitting "patriots" into an "enemy combatant" character and standing.
Listen to his opening remarks; very shrewd by mentioning he has nine children (really stressing and emphasizing that fact which garnered reaction from the "Denny's gathering") as if to gain favor and trust with other family oriented people seeking remedy and truth.
"We don't have months, only weeks until this all goes down": more gloom and doom hype-methodology in order to "sign up" as many "patriots" as possible at this meeting.
And yet they have papers documented and recorded at the Hague and upon the International community at large. Why are they not gaining recognition as a separate and moral state as opposed to the so-called corporate UNITED STATES which is only a defacto government who is saluted by the military simply because there is no other valid or rightful authority in place.
How long is this RAP/RuSA going to keep pretending it is gaining headway when they still have not figured out how to instruct the people about two of the most important steps to freedom and remedy:
1) Knowing one's True Name
2) Redeeming and demanding lawful money of exchange
With all that time and research, NO ONE from RAP/RuSA has even stumbled upon these key points of the path to regaining freedom and remedy? Sounds at least unbelievable and at most fishy.
That is Teri HINKLE's group. I will give you the number for her Wednesday night teleconference if you like. Here is last week's recording (I think).Originally Posted by Sovereignty
Very true! It is in my opinion that people sense there is remedy and build an elaborate construction of it instead of keeping it so simple.
Just one of the many, many astounding obfuscations by Tim TURNER is that §508 of the IRC is special rules for the §501 (C)(3) Corporations. Tim informs the followers that RAP/RuSA is a non-profit religious organization with the IRS for tax exempt purposes, yet he says it with such slick snake oil salesman precision that people actually argued that he must have meant something else by this:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1E...NzYyZmJl&hl=en
So, two of the most important steps to freedom and remedy:
1) Knowing one's True Name
2) Redeeming and demanding lawful money of exchange
I know my true name, but does that mean I need to record a document to 'prove' I know it?
Also, redeeming and demanding lawful money of exchange, does it matter when you begin the process?
Immediately, if not sooner I suspect? My meager earnings are auto deposited at the bank - don't you just love efficiency?
Do I instruct the employer, or the bank? (I remember reading about it, but haven't located it since.)
Are there steps 3 and 4 and...?
I think having a thread devoted to just this one topic would be helpful.
There are several great threads. I add step 3) Proper Record-Forming.
I am not certain publishing your true name will be helpful except to you. If the record on your heart, about the truth is vibrant then that is bound to manifest around you - in my opinion. I see it with myself for half my life and I see it in the testimony you will find here that our fears are almost certainly meant to be overcome, showing us in the outcome, that we really had nothing to fear to begin with. But there it is, we still have fears. And then we learn what we can; and again learn the same lesson - we really had nothing to fear - but only after we have the faith to overcome it...
I suppose the best encouragement is to enjoy life along the way.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. My thought to starting a new thread; if you do not find a thread that suits what you have in mind, start one!
Last edited by David Merrill; 04-27-11 at 01:39 AM.
Tim contacted me with the same old lies, on YouTube the other day. I am starting to get messages from the brain trust and otherwise about fantastic revaluations and Obama/Biden are supposed to announce their resignations together, later this morning. Like revealed above Tim is James Timothy TURNER and posted to me on my YouTube channel as "james turner".
Before judging please notice a couple things about my amicus brief. First, that it is filed and published. This is prerogatory of a state. Second, that I use the Great Seal as a State. This is why the paper was filed and published. There was some Internet commentary by remedy skeptics dismayed at what a short prison term Ron actually served too; considering he "fled justice" at sentencing.
Last edited by David Merrill; 02-22-16 at 11:24 AM.
One glaring problem with this "Republic of Missouri" thing is that terms like "Republic of Missouri" tend to represent the name of something (initial caps). It doesn't take much trouble for anyone around Missouri land to dig up an original state constitution and come to the conclusion that a free and independent republic was formed and that it has a specific name and the name (or stile") of that free and independent republic never was "Republic of Missouri" and it is not "Republic of Missouri". I would tend to ignore much of RAP/TT. TT + RAP = TTRAP, if you stutter just a little bit.
Around the Civil War, it is suggested the same republic to be a "free, sovereign and independent". To determine the name of that republic, one need only take a look at the original its 1821 constituting documents (hint: its not "the State of Missouri").
Now is it any coincidence, a primary Securities and Exchange Commission repository, a primary site for handling Federal Tax Deposits center, the primary gateway between the FRB system and the U.S. Treasury, and, TWO federal reserve banks (FRB St. Louis and FRB Kansas City) are located or resident in Missouri--with all of the foregoing except for FRB Kansas City being located in St. Louis. St. Louis was formerly a capitol city of the Louisiana Territory, the District of Louisiana, and the Missouri Territory (St. Charles City is the former capital of the State of Missouri) and possibly even a capital city during both French Louisiana and Spanish Louisiana. Interestingly enough, the Mississippi River was known of by the Spanish as Río del Espíritu Santo (or River of the Holy Spirit).
There have been constitutions associated with "Missouri" in total (1820, 1865, 1875, and 1945). Nonetheless, the basis for assertion of sovereignty could be drawn from various sources: the Louisiana Purchase Treaty (aka Treaty of Cession), the Declaration of Independence, the Original Footing Doctrine, principles concerning reversion to the people of sovereignty upon dissolution of a state government and the like. In sum, AFAIK, there has never been officially a "Republic of Missouri"."We, the people of Missouri, inhabiting the limits hereinafter designated, by our representatives in convention assembled at St. Louis, on Monday, the 12th day of June, 1820, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent republic by the name of 'The State of Missouri,' and for the government thereof do ordain and establish this constitution."
Its worth noting, nonetheless, it is an thousands-of-years ancient principle that if a government ceases to exist, the power reverts to the people or the founders. A doppleganger or clone doesn't get the power, it reverts. Similarly, if you delegated exclusive authority to A to shop for you and A died, the delegation ceases and reverts back to you. It seems that Missouri government though sovereignty was asserted, took a neutral position which opposed invasion or coercion by any party to the Civil War whether it be the Union or the Confederacy.
Relevant side note:
From: United States Congressional Serial Set, Issue 4247
Now, although The State of Missouri tended to be a pro-slavery state, the Dred Scott decision actually pivoted upon various technicalities and said NOTHING NEW: someone born a slave would not be deemed to have the rights of the freeborn. That is, Dredd Scott more wisely would have either [1] (rather than confessing to being born a slave) asserted having been born free and kidnapped and held against his will; [2] sued while living in Wisconsin or Illinois (slavery-free states--Missouri was the wrong venue really and Dredd Scott may have been misled by lawyers and used as a political and propaganda tool). Another technicality is his birth on a military base and his being the 'slave' of a soldier (himself a U.S. subject). If he did either of those, the case would probably not have been published (see Amistad). However, it seems that one can volunteer into slaveborn status.
Most of what is taught about the Dred Scott case are lies contrary to the actual decision of the case.
The very same courthouse still stands as of February 20, 2016 is undergoing rennovations.
The case said that someone born a slave could not claim citizenship in the United States (federal or several?) and the distinction between being a 'negro' of 'African races' vs. being a 'negro' of 'other races' is made there or in Amistad. The term 'negro' is laid bare as having little to nothing to do with being from Africa. The exoteric media propaganda is a mere rumor compared to the truth or facts of the case. Also, the nature of itinere status was asserted in the Dred Scott case. "Negro" != "negro" (not synonymous).The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. [A Wikipedia pop propaganda lie.]
Last edited by allodial; 02-22-16 at 08:13 PM.
All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
