Thursday, December 28, 2017


Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada Hearing: Argued January 19, 2004 Judgment: June 30, 2004 Full case name Moïse Amselem, Gladys Bouhadana, Antal Klein and Gabriel Fonfeder v Syndicat Northcrest; League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada v Syndicat Northcrest Citations [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII); (2004), 241 D.L.R. (4th) 1; (2004), 121 C.R.R. (2d) 189 Prior history Judgment for Syndicat Northcrest in the Court of Appeal for Quebec. Holding Succahs may be built if connected to the religious beliefs of individuals; conflicting property and security rights were marginally impaired and thus do not outweigh freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Court Membership Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish Reasons given Majority Iacobucci J., joined by McLachlin, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ. Dissent Bastarache J., joined by LeBel and Deschamps JJ. Dissent Binnie J. Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority. Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Dissent 3.1 Bastarache 3.2 Binnie 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Background[edit] The case arose after Orthodox Jews in Montreal erected succahs on their balconies in a residential building which they owned. Succahs are small dwellings in which Jews live during Succot, a Jewish holiday, in accordance with the Hebrew Bible. However, those who managed the buildings, Syndicat Northcrest, claimed the succahs violated by-laws forbidding structures to be built on the balconies. The Orthodox Jews had not seen this requirement as applying to religious requirements because Christmas decorations and the like were allowed. Syndicat Northcrest denied all requests that succahs be built, except one to be shared but this did not however meet minimal Jewish Halachic requirements. Consequently, an injunction by Syndicat Northcrest was filed against further succahs. While there was no government action responsible for violating a right, the Quebec Charter is of relevance to personal disputes. As Justice Michel Bastarache wrote, "the first paragraph of s. 9.1 [of the Quebec Charter], insofar as it does not require that the infringement of a right or freedom result from the application of the law, applies only to private law relationships, that is, to infringements of the rights and freedoms of private individuals by other private individuals."[1] Bastarache noted this is what occurred in a previous case, Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc (1998). Decision[edit] The majority decision was written by Justice Frank Iacobucci. He examined whether the by-laws violated the freedom of religion of the Orthodox Jews, and whether Syndicat Northcrest's opposition to the succahs was protected by rights to enjoy property under the Quebec Charter. Iacobucci first attempted to define freedom of religion, and started by giving a legal definition for religion. He decided that religion is a thorough set of beliefs regarding a higher power, tied with a person's view of him or herself and his/her needs to realize spiritual completeness.[2] Iacobucci went on to note that in past freedom of religion cases, such as R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), the Supreme Court has advocated giving freedom of religion a large and liberal definition emphasizing individual rights. In Big M, it was noted there should be respect for religious diversity and no coercion to do something in violation of one's religion.[3] A journal article was then cited to establish this precedent favoured an individual's view of religion to an organized church's.[4] Thus, anyone who claims rights to freedom of religion does not need to demonstrate that they were denied rights to worship in accordance with the manner required by a religious authority. Following R v Edwards Books Ltd and R v Jones, it was enough to demonstrate an individual religious belief.[5] These arguments were reinforced by a desire that secular governments and courts should not judge which religious practices are needed and which are not; this was to make legal decisions regarding moral beliefs.[6] Still, practices required by a religious authority are also protected; what matters is that the practice is connected to a religious belief.[7] To determine whether an individual belief is sincere, the Court noted US case law, which advocated a minimally intrusive evaluation of an individual's beliefs. Courts must only determine that a belief is not feigned and religious claims are made in good faith.[8] It must be asked whether an individual's testimony can be believed, and how one belief fits in with others held by the individual. In this, the Supreme Court added that courts should tolerate a change in beliefs; the individual's beliefs held in the past are not relevant to those claimed in the present.[9] Next, the court will determine whether a sufficiently large violation of freedom of religion has occurred to raise challenges under the Quebec and Canadian Charters. The gravity of the violations will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[10] However, in this case the Supreme Court noted freedom of religion should not work to deny the rights of others.[11] Turning back to this case, the Supreme Court observed Syndicat Northcrest had argued freedom of religion was limited here by rights to enjoy property and to personal security. However, the Court found the rights of the Orthodox Jews had been severely infringed, while Syndicat Northcrest's rights were not significantly affected. Thus, freedom of religion would prevail. The trial judge had found at least one of the Orthodox Jews sincerely believed he needed a succah, while the others seemed not to because they did not have succahs in the past. The Supreme Court rejected the latter finding, because it relied on a study of past practice. The Supreme Court also noted the Jews might have wanted succahs for religious reasons, regardless of whether they were necessary; this also undermined the view that past practices should be studied. The Court then decided the violation of religious freedom was serious because the right to an individual succah was not limited but denied completely.[12] Conversely, Syndicat Northcrest claimed that the succahs limited rights to enjoy property because the succahs could take away from the attractiveness of the building and its financial value. Rights to personal security were claimed because the succahs might block off fire escapes. The Court was unconvinced the property value would drop because of lack of evidence, and the attractiveness of the building for nine days every year was held to be a small issue, especially in the context of the importance of multiculturalism. The Court also noted the Jews had offered to mind fire safety. Regarding the argument that the Jews had waived their rights, Iacobucci noted it was still not certain whether constitutional rights can be waived. If they can, the waiver should be more explicit and done under complete free will. The Jews in this case did not have complete free will in their agreement because they wanted to live in those buildings.[13] Dissent[edit] Bastarache[edit] A dissent was written by Justice Bastarache. He interpreted past freedom of religion case law as meaning the right protects religious beliefs and practices that result from those beliefs. Beliefs can be discovered through religious rules; these distinguish religion from personal activities. Thus, a belief is not held individually but is shared. This provided an objective approach to freedom of religion. Expert testimony would be a great help in finding whether a belief is religious. Next, the sincerity of the individual is studied, in a non-intrusive way. Bastarache felt for most of the Jews in this case, the religion required eating in a succah, but an individual succah was not needed. While Bastarache noted one Jew might have a right to an individual succah, this needed to be balanced against "proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec", as required by the Quebec Charter. The property and safety rights thus entered consideration. Bastarache wrote that "it is difficult to imagine how granting a right of way in emergency situations, which is essential to the safety of all the occupants of the co-owned property, could fail to justify the prohibition against setting up succahs, especially in light of the compromise proposed by the respondent."[14] Binnie[edit] Justice Ian Binnie also wrote a dissent. He observed the oddness of the situation, namely that a right was being claimed against other owners of the building and not a government. The owners had made agreements that would prohibit the succahs. Binnie emphasized the importance of this agreement or contract. See also[edit] List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court) History of the Jews in Canada Status of religious freedom in Canada Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys References[edit] Jump up ^ Para. 152. Jump up ^ Para. 39. Jump up ^ Para. 40. Jump up ^ Para. 42. Jump up ^ Para. 43-44. Jump up ^ Para. 50. Jump up ^ Para. 47. Jump up ^ Para. 52. Jump up ^ Para. 53. Jump up ^ Para. 57-50. Jump up ^ Para. 62. Jump up ^ Para. 74. Jump up ^ Para. 98. Jump up ^ Para. 179.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Driving and Cannabis consumption

Reasons Why Marijuana Users Are Safe Drivers
Driving while intoxicated is a well known way to cause an accident on the road. Although not as common, you can be charged with that offense for more than just drinking alcohol. It also includes anything else that causes impairment, such as drugs (whether they are legal ones or not), including marijuana.marijuana and driving However, 20 years of study has concluded that marijuana smokers may actually be getting a bad rap and that they may actually have fewer accidents than other drivers. There have been several studies done over the past 20 years and every one of them has revealed that using marijuana actually has a very minor, if any, effect on the ability of a person to drive a car or other vehicle. Marijuana, Alcohol users Use Products Differently Research studies showed that if a comparison was done between how drivers who had been drinking alcohol and those who had been using marijuana, it showed that the pot users were in fewer crashes. Why is this so? Researchers believe it is because of the way people consume the two products, as alcohol drinkers usually do their drinking out in public and then try to drive home, while pot smokers usually smoke at home and don’t try to drive, meaning fewer are involved in driving accidents in the first place. Research also shows that while drunk drivers usually drive faster and don’t understand that their driving skills are messed up, the drivers that have been smoking marijuana actually tend to drive slower and stay away from risky behavior. These and other tests on marijuana smoking and driving were done in different places all over the world, including Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the United States, and the UK with the following results: Results of Major Studies on Marijuana and Driving The research that has been done on this phenomenon of marijuana smoking and driving has shown some interesting results: Research studies in the Netherlands at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research that drivers with blood alcohol rates of .5 percent up to .8 percent had accidents five times more than other drivers, and if it was higher amounts of alcohol, the results were accidents happening up to 15 times more often. But, the marijuana smokers actually showed these drivers posed NO risk at all! Top 10 Reasons Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers When you combine all of the main results of these two decades worth of scientific research studies, the following 10 reasons marijuana drivers are safer than drunk drivers comes out like this: 1. Drivers who had been using marijuana were found to drive slower, according to a 1983 study done by U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). This was seen as a factor in their favor, since drivers who drank alcohol usually drove faster and that is part of the reason they had accidents. 2. Marijuana users were able to drive straight and not have any trouble staying in their own lanes when driving on the highway, according to a NHTSA done in 1993 in the Netherlands. The study determined also that the use of marijuana had very little affect on the person’s overall driving ability. 3. Drivers who had smoked marijuana were shown to be less likely to try to pass other cars and to drive at a consistent speed, according to a University of Adelaide study done in Australia. The study showed no danger unless the drivers had also been drinking alcohol. 4. Drivers high on marijuana were also shown to be less likely to drive in a reckless fashion, according to a study done in 2000 in the UK by the UK Transport Research Lab. The study was done using driver on driving simulators over a period of a month and was actually undertaken to show that pot was a cause for impairment, but instead it showed the opposite and confirmed that these drivers were actually much safer than some of the other drivers on the road. 5. States that allow the legal use of marijuana for medical reasons are noticing less traffic fatalities; for instance, in Colorado and Montana there has been a nine percent drop in traffic fatalities and a five percent drop in beer sales. The conclusion was that using marijuana actually has helped save lives! Medical marijuana is allowed in 16 states in the U.S. 6. Low doses of marijuana in a person’s system was found by tests in Canada in 2002 to have little effect on a person’s ability to drive a car, and that these drivers were in much fewer car crashes than alcohol drinkers. driving stoned 7. Most marijuana smokers have fewer crashes because they don’t even drive in the first place and just stay home thus concluded more than one of these tests on pot smoking and driving. 8. Marijuana smokers are thought to be more sober drivers. Traffic information from 13 states where medical marijuana is legal showed that these drivers were actually safer and more careful than many other drivers on the road. These studies were confirmed by the University of Colorado and the Montana State University when they compared a relationship between legal marijuana use and deaths in traffic accidents in those states. The studies done by a group called the Truth About Cars showed that traffic deaths fell nine percent in states with legal use of medical marijuana. (To view our study on Drunk Driving vs. Alcohol-Related Traffic Deaths, click here.) 9. Multiple studies showed that marijuana smokers were less likely to be risk takers than those that use alcohol. The studies showed that the marijuana calmed them down and made them actually pay more attention to their abilities.All of these tests and research studies showed that while some people think that marijuana is a major cause of traffic problems, in reality it may make the users even safer when they get behind the wheel! 10. Marijuana smoking drivers were shown to drive at prescribed following distances, which made them less likely to cause or have crashes. Every test seemed to come up with these same results in all of the countries they were done in. Even so, insurance companies will still penalize any driver in an accident that has been shown to have been smoking pot, so this doesn’t give drivers free reign to smoke pot and drive. So, the bottom line is that while alcohol has been shown in every single incident to have major problems and to have caused countless traffic crashes and fatalities, pot smoking overall has had none of these issues and in fact may make drivers pay more attention, drive slower and straighter and perhaps even stay home so they can’t be in an accident at all!

Sunday, September 17, 2017

minister Nancy Jean on the sixth day of August in the year of our Lord two thousand and fourteen completed a Historical Private Agreement Established and Confirmed Thank you to each private man and woman acting as the defacto government and police in the province of Ontario. Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. Tetelestai! View the agreement and witness to my sincere purpose:

The Office of the Person....

The Office of the Person The Official State Office Known As “PERSON" What happens when Attorners, Members of the B.A.R. hold positions in State Legislature? Every State House has an Office filled with B.A.R. Attorneys who serve the B.A.R. DEBT Collectors for the Bankruptcy under the International Monetary Fund - I.M.F. not the people. Here’s a description of part of the fraud they perpetrate by wording all the Bills and Resolutions for the Commercial Codes and Statutes they create. This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life. The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425. One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt. In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit: (1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa. (2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter. (3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. Note however, the definitions statute does not list man or woman -- therefore they are excluded from all the statutes! Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples : 1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person … 2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person … 3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person … 4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person … 5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person … Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character. So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE OF… statutes and laws? There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in their 13th and 14th Amendments of the de facto U.S. on D.C. as of 1871, not to be mistaken for the Constitution of 1787-89. 13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution. The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator. The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU. Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office. They have created the office of “person." The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls.” A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears.” The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask. A resident is another STATE office holder. All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person." Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons. Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons. Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons. An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs. If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows: Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on. Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own. The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE. "Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes. If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows: Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on. Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own. The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE. "Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes. A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People. When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?” Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE “person." Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947). The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.” U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained: "A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907). The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker. A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. "No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440. There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE. One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them. You are not a "person" subject to their laws. If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him: I have no need to answer you in this matter. It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges. It is none of your business whether I want counsel. The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do. I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you. You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein. The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you. The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power. When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905). Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them. Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way.” Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited. Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government. Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE. Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact. Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone. Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found : "We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts. A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally. Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again. This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control. ~~~~~ The “14th Amendment U.S. citizenship status” The Denizen - Inhabitant - Occupant - Foreigner - Resident - Alien A foreigner allowed certain rights in the adopted country. An inhabitant of a place, or one who dwells in a place, whether local, regional or national. A person with rights between those of a citizen and a resident alien. Free Negro, a non-slave black person in the United States, prior to the abolition of slavery. Unassimilated Native American considered a citizen of a tribal domestic nation but not of the United States or any state. The de facto U.S. Corporation on D.C. created a “citizenship” for the freed “black” slaves because they were never considered to be people, as were the “whites.” Citizenship was unequivocally granted to African Americans in 1868 with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it would be almost another 100 years before African Americans were accorded full protection under the law and discrimination outlawed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well. However, free blacks were accorded a quasi-citizenship in some northern states, being allowed to vote and hold property, but this gradually diminished after 1800. And contrary to what some might believe, free blacks endured significant racial discrimination in the North.If there was ever any doubt as to whether or not African Americans were entitled to citizenship, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights. That decision, however, only fueled the fire. While the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did free the slaves in Southern states and many fought in the Union Army, it was the Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1864 that outlawed slavery throughout the United States; it did not, however, confer rights of citizenship. Following the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the “14th Amendment,” ratified in 1868, did grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, but it did not end racial discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was intended to end segregation but was rarely enforced; and in 1883 the Act was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that state governments had no power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals and organizations, paving the way for Jim Crow laws and confining African Americans to the status of second-class citizens. Many of the provisions set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later restored in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The “14th Amendment” was enacted to Grant Slaves Citizenship, or for illegals running to the border to have that baby in America. What was the intent of the Amendment? Restore Blacks to full citizenship that the original Constitution denied them or to all Hispanics to run for the border when they are 8 1/2 months pregnant to achieve citizenship for their baby? If people would actually look at the case decisions both the prevailing and the descending opinions, Americans would understand the law and it’s original intent. In 1865–1866, southern states and localities enacted black Codes to regulate the status and conduct of the newly freed slaves. The codes deprived blacks of many basic rights accorded to whites, including full rights to own property, to testify in court in cases in which whites were parties, to make contracts, to travel, to preach, to assemble, to speak, and to bear arms. To Republicans, the Black Codes were only the latest southern attack on individual rights. Before the war, southern states had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to protect the institution of slavery. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833 that guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not limit the states (Barron v. Baltimore), many Republicans thought state officials were obligated to respect those guarantees. The Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857) had held that blacks, including free blacks, were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore were entitled to none of the rights and privileges it secured. Republicans also rejected Scott and thought the newly freed slaves should be citizens entitled to all the rights of citizens (See Citizenship). The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1 made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Section 2 reduced the representation of any state that deprived a part of its male population of the right to vote, an indirect attempt to protect the voting rights of blacks. Other sections protected the federal war debt, prohibited payment of the Confederate debt, and disabled from holding office those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution but who had engaged in rebellion. Section 5 empowered Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the preceding sections.15 The first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect came in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), in which the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law. The Court limited the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States referred to in the amendment to relatively narrow rights such as protection on the high seas and the right to travel to and from the nation’s capital. The Slaughterhouse Cases drastically curtailed the protection afforded by the amendment against state violations of fundamental guarantees of liberty. One reason for the majority’s narrow construction of the amendment was its fear that a more expansive reading would threaten the basic functions of state governments, both by federal judicial action and through enforcement by federal statutes that might displace large areas of state law (See Federalism). “the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law.” Here the de facto U.S. Corporation and their slave running Crown Bankster owners and their Crown B.A.R. Attorners demonstrate clearly that U.S. citizens status was purely a creation of their Corporate fiction, therefore within their control. They can control only that which they create. Observe, U.S. citizens are a new type of property attorned to a new owner. “Freed” “Black” Slaves remain as slaves, with very limited privileges; “Civil Rights.” Contrary to the expectations of some of the amendment’s framers, the Supreme Court held that it did not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1833) to require states and local governments to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court also held that because the amendment provided that “no state shall” deprive persons of the rights it guaranteed, Congressional legislation protecting blacks and Republicans from Ku Klux Klan violence exceeded the power of the federal government. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court nullified provisions of the 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. It held that the amendment reached only state action, not purely private action. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that state-mandated racial segregation of railway cars did not violate the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (See Segregation, De Jure). In 1908 it upheld a state statute requiring segregation of private colleges (Berea College v. Kentucky). Justice John Marshall Harlan registered eloquent but lonely dissents to the Court’s decisions sanctioning stateimposed segregation. The Court also held, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and Minor v. Happersett (1875), respectively, that the amendment did not protect the right of women to practice law or to vote. Whites had the right to expatriate to escape the construct created to absorb all U.S. “persons” and this is demonstrated in the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, only one day before the official date for the U.S. Corporate “14th Amendment” on Sunday, July 28, 1868. In applying the international rules of the law of nations: The persons who are participating in the Fourteenth Amendment system are in rebellion; not the ones that claim de jure status/nationality—one reason being the amendment was not lawfully ratified, see Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pp 15641-15646. The premise of expatriation, or terminating the national of the United States status, is valid due to the contrived Fourteenth Amendment. LB Bork, Illinois national So to denounce any and all alleged contracts, presumed or otherwise, by choice or default, an oath purgatory and Declaration should be based upon the following: One day before the horrific U.S. “14th Amendment” - Never Lawfully Ratified, became a spectacle or thumb in the eye of the Union of States, only to diminish the status of all our people, and to enslave them as DEBTORS in perpetuity, hence forhth known as the U.S. citizen, eventually cast as the Enemy of the State, So be it, July 27, 1868 The Expatriation Act is legally referenced as Public Law, 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224 (1868), and is as follows: Article 15. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. This is a principle of the United Nations and declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. See Title 8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. The Right of Expatriation Declared CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. PREAMBLE. RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN FOREIGN STATES. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed. SECTION I. Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. SECTION II. Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances. SECTION III. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868 You must understand that the several States are foreign to the United States. A good example of this can be found in Title 22 of the United States Code: • FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE. Title 22 USC § 2659. State statutes to be procured. The Secretary of State shall procure from time to time such of the statutes of the several States as may not be in his office. ERGO: The several states are “foreign” to the United States; hence, foreign state as used in the preamble of this act can be easily construed to mean the several states; and in the other sections can mean any foreign state in the world. Note that the exslaves are protected by the United States and carry United States nationality; the United States can, and has gone, into the several States of the Union and protected them. ~~~~~ The 21st Century U.S. person - The Enemy of the State Today, in the days of the year 2017, well beyond 1868, the tragic error in maintaining the inferior status of subject or U.S. citizen, in these advanced times of financial disaster, is the truest form of political suicide. It’s soon to be five years beyond the One Hundred Year mark of full enslavement of the American people by the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bank Conglomerate owned, fully metastasized malignancy, the Creature of Jeckyl Island, the Jesuit run FEDERAL RESERVE. The totality of ruination perpetrated by these Banksters and their B.A.R. Attorners stands as a monument to glorify the Saturnalia celebration of death to all. The Satanic Jesuits loathe the notion of freedom and independence for mankind. Their gluttony is as perverse as there is. These Banksters and their puppet Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and control the lives of all American citizens/U.S. citizens.“ This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. U.S. has been in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 63 years without most of the population knowing it. According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b) (Now found in Title 50), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”. On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effectremedies of uniform national application”. This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution. Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency. 12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes". This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It was here that every American citizen/U.S. citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration. According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, U.S. citizens have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens/U.S. citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain. This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know why U.S. citizens no longer receive allodial freehold title to land. As enemies, U.S. citizens, property is no longer Theirs to have. The only way U.S. citizens can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. All these Emergency Powers as amended by F.D.R. was initiated by the Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE. In doing so, they also stole all the gold. On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and "the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6”. Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system. He did so with Proclamation 2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans. Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a national bank emergency whereas; "All Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed”. Roosevelt, in the most repugnant act, did exactly as the unlawful, Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE instructed him. He acted so as to preevent U.S. citizens from getting their own gold, but since U.S. citizens are really slaves, he went on to order they all turn in their gold, therefore robbing them for his Jesuit Zionist Bankster Lords. At that time, and yet another artificially created Depression, the ignorant population accepted Roosevelt for multiple terms, turned in their gold, and then went to another world war fomented by the same Banking Cabal. Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the de facto Constitution is automatically abolished. U.S. citizens are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. U.S. citizens are under a system of War Powers. Stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as U.S. citizens are considered enemies of the state. What they have is not theirs under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine. Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's signature because Congress granted him these emergency powers. For over 60 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power and terminate the original proclamation. Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship. State Of Emergency The mission of State Of Emergency is to provide current event news, comments on the news and information on the declared state of emergency continually in effect since March 9, 1933. The citizens of the USA have been codified as the enemy of the Federal Government. The source for the proof of our status as the enemy of the government is found in Congressional Records, Senate Reports and the Federal Register (see page links). The emergency must be ended in order to restore Constitutional law. “…"That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both . . .” “As used in this subdivision, the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership, association or corporation.” "During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed " Documentation by one writer connects the origin of the Trading With the Enemy Act with events of March 27, 1861. "Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order" under the Emergency War Powers Act (12 USC 95 a, b): "Every citizen of the United States is now legally established as an enemy via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1)" which amended the Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91).[2] On March 27, 1861, "seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. law of necessity," meaning that there is "no law." [12 Stat 319 has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties.][3] All U.S. citizens/persons as amended to the Trading With the Enemy Act, are the Enemies of the State. This is how and why the Police, FBI, and their Admiralty Courts enforce Commercial Bankruptcy Code upon U.S. citizens. When we voluntarily or involuntarily entered their Military Courts of Justice, one will frequently hear the prosecutor or defense lawyer argue that: ‘Your comment or actions are a belligerent response’ [or] ‘You are being combative.’ Key words to inform you that you or someone else, is about to be fleeced! Lawyers will even attempt to provoke you or your witness’s anger in the Court, just so you or they behave belligerently toward them and this is why they do that! Under Regulation 840-10 of the Military Code and sections of the Administrative Procedures Act and the presence of that Military [gold fringed] Flag on display in the Courtroom, instantly creates a state of emergency meaning that, the moment a police officer stopped you in the exercise of your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the police officer became a belligerent! He is armed and you’re not! He displays a military rank and you’re a civilian and he has now delivered you into a Military Court of Justice with the intent to ‘pillage and plunder’ within the Admiralty jurisdiction of that Military Court, which is also known as ‘The Law of Prize and Captured Property,’ as defined under Title 10, sections 7651 to 7681 of the Code of Military Justice, March 25, 1862. As mentioned before, The Reconstruction Act included and changed all state officials into having ‘federal foreign standing.’ The 14th amendment deliberately forced and kept them there and section 2 of the Lieber Code instructs that: ‘A victorious army seizes all money and movable property and holds it in trust,’ and this is exactly what the Corporate United States Government and State Governments did and continue to do because they now perceive themselves to be, ‘a victorious army.’ The corporate Congress; the corporate Military Government and their corporate Military Courts of Justice however discovered that they could not gain access to those Public Trusts deposited into the Federal Reserve System, which they had created using our birth registration forms; social security registration forms, licenses, personal property, deeds, promissory notes, equity and credit, without including our individual persons into the bankruptcy of the United States Treasury of 1933. So they cleverly denied our personal Sovereignty and converted our persons into an appellation, which is a corporate fiction or strawman and identified us by writing our birth names all in capital letters. All of our Licenses and documents now reflect this appellation. Again, these acts against the people are done by Foreign Agents, most of whom are completely maddened and obsessed as criminally insane thieves. They’re behaviour demonstrates no regard for others who wish to live. Their local servants here, meaning Police and other Municipal Agencies are completely uninformed and quite often, belligerent order takers who physically harm those who do know their rights. The following material should explain who and what they Codify and publish about themselves: Title 22 U.S. Code (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section. 22 C.F.R. - Code of Federal Regulations 92.12-92.31 FR Heading "Foreign Relationship" states that an oath is required to take office. Title 8 U.S. Code 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state. Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund. In 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under defini- tion. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people. December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations as Congress relinquished every public office over to the U.N. Local governments, up to the president, fall under U.N. jurisdiction. Congress gave the U.N. the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States. The Pan American treaty of December 26, 1933 (49 STAT 3097) Treaty Series 881 – (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated Congress re- placed Statutes with international law, placing all states under international law. As one can easily see, U.S. is a foreign and hostile Pirate Vessel docked at D.C. Their business to to rape and plunder this land and the people by force if necessary. Barack Obama signed NDAA into effect so that the Military can attack U.S. citizens should they decide and George H.W. Bush signed Noahide Law into effect so under Martial Law, U.S. citizens can be killed and beheaded in FEMA Camps. They have profit to make at it. Every U.S. citizen has a very large Estate, which rightfully belongs to them, not the Banksters or their B.A.R. Attorners. The following information will shed some light on what they do when they drag the U.S. citizen/person/tax slave into mock Military Tribunals: 1099-OID Basic Explanation Of Theory The State did not provide you with a check to pay the charges against you, so they are WITHHOLDING TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS FEDERAL WITHHOLDING so your charges continue on and you report that taxable income on a Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. All taxable income must be reported to the IRS. The Court still shows you owe the taxable income (the bill/bond amount) and that is the detainer they use to hold your body with. One should have a 1040, 1099OID and 1096 filed for the bill or Bond amount. The taxable income withheld needs to be assessed on a Form 1040 to identify whose income they are withholding. Could it be that it´s your income claimed? If a 1040 is not filed, one is at the mercy of the Prosecutor using his public deferral, which is a set-off and that set-off is used to detain one and keep one under the jurisdiction of the court/jail. The only way one can zero the account/issue is to claim the taxable income being charged on the Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. If one does have a 1040, 1099 OID and 1096 filed one has now vouched for claim of Title. Now the State´s [alledged] prosecutor needs to produce his individual Form 1040 tax return to vouch for the claim of title in fact. (He doesn´t have one.) It is the 1040 that is the ´Certificate of Title´ to those who make claim to a ´Title´ to something. If they don´t have that 1040 they are withholding taxable income belonging to the person whose name is on the bill/bond. One needs to ask the Prosecutor if he is making a claim ex-officio or otherwise. The Federal Tax Court is a court of “Record.” The 1040 filing is the "Record" and also the ´Certificate of Title´ to the property in question. "One´s BODY.” And considering that all crime is commercial (27 CFR § 72.11),

Real criminal invesitgation and professionalism regarding the Medpharmfraud of 2019