Bogus US oaths...color of crayon law!

UNDERSTANDING THE OATH OF OFFICE

Understanding the law(s) and the requirements on the “Oath of Office”. A.k.a; the Office of Public Trust. Why it is important that we understand the required “Oath” and hold those accountable that will infringe on any of the “Bill of Rights”.

All governmental officers, Federal and State officers are only official when they are acting under Art. 6 Sec. 3 of the Constitution for the United States of Amercia.

All official Federal governmental officers are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.

Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by Law.
After taking the required oath, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, that person is now an official (federal government). The same person that has taken the required oath is now acting under Color of Law and Color of Office.

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

No Judge Oath - Judge's Decision Void
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/050706VoidDecision.html

Section 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an
individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of
the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if
he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of
government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike,
against the Government of the United States or the government of
the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the
Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the
government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year and a day, or both.

Check your States Constitution and Laws on the Oath of Office

In the State of NEVADA:
All governmental officers: State, City and County are only official when they are acting under THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA: ARTICLE. 15. Sec 2.
State of Constitution for the Nevada: ARTICLE. 15. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec 2. Oath of office.

All NEVADA officials are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under The Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 282.020.

Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:

I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.

STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.

NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)

In suites against state officers. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; In suits against federal officers.


CHECK YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.

Color of law
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which is actually in violation. For example, a police officer who mistakenly arrests another without probable cause may have been acting under the color of law.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment."
42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:
(1) Preventing officer performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.]
This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).
U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 241 - 242.
"Whoever, under color of any law, ... willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Color of office
Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person - or object - related to an officium, v., since the Romans the staff of a high office bearer such as a governor) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working space with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participating in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). An elected official is a person who is an official by virtue of an election; officials may also be appointed, ex officio (i.e. by virtue of another office, often in a specified capacity, such as presiding, advisory, secretary), cooptated, or sometimes hereditary.
Malice (legal term)
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party or does harm to another. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice aforethought is an element of the crime of murder in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common law system.
In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance in a public office includes Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] A.C. 158; Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000][1] and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 2 QB 335 in which Steyn LJ. found that malice could be made out if the acts were done with an actual intention to cause injury. Malice could be shown if the acts were done in the knowledge of invalidity or lack of power and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity or lack of power and that likely injury. These elements, with respect, are consistent with the views of the majority albeit that some of those views were expressed tentatively having regard to the basis upon which the case before them was presented.
In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"}, R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:
(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).
Lord Diplock confirmed the relationship to recklessness in R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421:
In the offence under section 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
In the United States, the Malice Standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil liberties campaign. The Malice Standard decides whether press reports can be considered defamation or libel.
Treason
For other uses, see Treason (disambiguation).
"Traitor" redirects here. For other uses, see Traitor (disambiguation)
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.
Infringed / Infringement
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right.
Bill of Rights
n. the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution demanded by several states in return for ratifying the Constitution, since the failure to protect these rights was a glaring omission in the Constitution as adopted in convention in 1787. Adopted and ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights are: First: Prohibits laws establishing a religion (separation of church and state), and bans laws which would restrict freedom of religion, speech, press (now interpreted as covering all media), right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Second: A "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


EXPOSING THE TRUTH
Oath of Office
(Read Marbury v. Madison)
To Be (loyal) or not to Be (loyal)
That is the real question
We may be amateur historians, legal professors on Constitutional law, nevertheless, it makes us upset to see our government of today undermining and being disloyal to the Authors principals and intent to an central Government. All Federal and State officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United states." The promise to adhere to the Constitution means to adhere to that and nothing else besides! Divided and diluted patriotism is NOT what the Authors had in mind when they prescribed the basic Oath of Office. (US Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3. REQUIREMENT). An American public servant who trespasses outside the bounds of his/her Oath of Office is being adulterous toward their country. A restrictive activist is loyal and guards with jealous by its very nature. No one can serve two masters or be true to more the one wife. Federalist
Number 10, a thumbnail matter of this:
“The diversity in the faculties of men, form which the rights of property originates, is not less an insuperable obstacle to the uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government”. (Are required to protect and defend the Bill of Rights)
And how falsely they have been in their Oaths of Office to “support and defend the Constitution”! and The Bill of Rights. They have betrayed, mistrust and it is disloyalty. It is crime of perjury, and perjury is a statute by law. Read for yourself:

(U.S. Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3., Oath Of Office REQUIREMENT)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this constitution.
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2

Sec. 23. Presiding officer of Senate may administer oaths
STATUTE
The presiding officer, for the time being, of the Senate of the United States, shall have power to administer all oaths and affirmations that are or may be required by the Constitution, or by law, to be taken by any Senator, officer of the Senate, witness, or other person, in respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
2 USC Sec. 25
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2

Sec. 25. Oath of Speaker, Members, and Delegates
STATUTE
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.

2 USC Sec. 35
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 3

Sec. 35. Salaries payable monthly after taking oath
STATUTE
Each Member and Delegate, after he has taken and subscribed the required oath, is entitled to receive his salary at the end of each month. (Question; is this the only reason they take this "oath"?)

4 USC Sec. 101
TITLE 4
CHAPTER 4

Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
STATUTE
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: 'I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.'

5 USC Sec. 2903
TITLE 5
PART III
Subpart A
CHAPTER 29
SUBCHAPTER I

Sec. 2903. Oath; authority to administer
-STATUTE-
(a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered.
(b) An employee of an Executive agency designated in writing by the head of the Executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department with respect to an employee of his department, may administer -
(1) the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title, incident to entrance into the executive branch; or
(2) any other oath required by law in connection with employment in the executive branch.
(c) An oath authorized or required under the laws of the United States may be administered by -
(1) the Vice President; or
(2) an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United
States where the oath is administered.
*[71 U.S. 333, 334] ON the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by 'An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,'1 enacted:

'That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
Prescribed oath of July, 1862. During the War between the States
* "I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to [71 U.S. 333, 335] persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, not attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution with the United States, hostile or inimical thereto.* And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;'
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
* Footnote, no longer prescribed in today's oath. This was the fully prescribed oath of July, 1862. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331
5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 01/06/97
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - OATH OF OFFICE

Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY
Sec. 1621. Perjury generally
Whoever -
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office

5 U.S.C. Sec. 8312 01/26/98
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart G - Insurance and Annuities
CHAPTER 83 - RETIREMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY
Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses
-STATUTE-
(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual -

(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection; or (2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection.
The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies -
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this section, to the period after the date of conviction or after September 26, 1961, whichever is later.
(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794 (gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based. (2) An offense within the purview of -
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article 104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia -
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of -
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A) of this subsection;
(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States; or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee in connection with a matter under inquiry before the congressional committee involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273 (violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275 (receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to intelligence identities).
(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the annuity or retired pay concerned -
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of this subsection. (2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney, alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to be paid by the department or agency concerned.
Constitution for the State
of Nevada

ARTICLE. 15.
Miscellaneous Provisions.
Sec. 1. Carson City seat of government.
2. Oath of office.
3. Eligibility for public office.
4. Perpetuities; eleemosynary purposes.
5. Time of general election.
6. Number of members of legislature limited.
7. County offices at county seats.
8. Publication of general statutes and opinions of supreme court; effective date of opinions of supreme court.
9. Increase or decrease of compensation of officers whose compensation fixed by constitution.
10. Election or appointment of officers.
11. Term of office when not fixed by constitution; limitation; municipal officers and employees.
12. Certain state officers to keep offices at Carson City.
13. Census by legislature and Congress: Basis of representation in houses of legislature.
14. Election by plurality.
15. Merit system governing employment in executive branch of state government.
Section. 1. Carson City seat of government. The seat of Government shall be at Carson City, but no appropriation for the erection or purchase of Capitol buildings shall be made during the next three Years[.]
Section 2. Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:

I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.

Members of county game management boards are public officers and upon appointment are required to take constitutional oath of office. AGO 352 (11-5-1954)
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:

I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)

PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

NRS 199.120 Definition; penalties. A person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who:
1. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true;
2. Swears or affirms willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;
4. Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or
5. Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any
other person to do so, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

NRS 199.130 False affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs or causes to be made, executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, complaint,
deposition, or other instrument in writing before any officer or person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of
securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods, chattels or
effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, is guilty of perjury which
is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.140 Use of fictitious name on affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs, or causes to be made, executed or signed, any affidavit, complaint or other instrument, in
writing, before any United States officer or person, or before any state officer or person, authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with
the intent of securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods,
chattels or effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, and signs the same
by any other name than his or her true name, is guilty of perjury which is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.145 Statement made in declaration under penalty of perjury. A person who, in a declaration made under penalty of perjury:
1. Makes a willful and false statement in a matter material to the issue or point in question; or
2. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true, or who suborns another to make in such a declaration a statement of the kind described in subsection 1 or 2, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.150 Attempt to suborn perjury. Every person who, without giving, offering or promising a bribe, shall incite or attempt to procure
another to commit perjury, or to offer any false evidence, or to withhold true testimony, though no perjury be committed or false evidence offered or
true testimony withheld, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

NRS 199.160 Procuring the execution of innocent person by perjury or subornation of perjury. A person who, by willful and corrupt perjury or
subornation of perjury, procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person is guilty of murder which is a category A felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison:
1. For life without the possibility of parole;
2. For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served; or
3. For a definite term of 50 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served.
NRS 199.170 Oath and swear defined.
1. The term oath shall include an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.
2. A person who shall state any matter under oath shall be deemed to swear thereto.

As a nation we are used to seeing “In God We Trust” on our coins and Federal Notes (paper money). We even ask grace on the food we eat, open legislative sessions with prayer, and take solemn oaths before God! And throughout America, both old and new, runs the theme “truth equals freedom.” and we have heard “Ye shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall make you free.” Where did the equation originate if not in the Biblical text? Thomas Jefferson said that “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” And Lincoln phrased it, a nation under God!
I don't think that God chose us as his people, it's that we chose God. And it will mean and always will mean, so long as we remain a nation, that we Americans have taken God as a foundation for our political philosophy and for our nationalism. And that's why the last four words in the prescribed Oath of Offices says, “so help me God”!
So what can we do? Our goal is to bring our national Government back to the Authors intent. A true Republic form of Constitutional Government. This can only be done with the help of concerned citizens. We must stand together in numbers, then and only then will the national Government listen to what we have to say. “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.
Public Servants elected to Congress must be held accountable for their actions while in office.
A true American God fearing patriot
Gary W, De Capua / President of the C.R.T.F. / N.N.
Does No mean No?

SEVER ABILITY
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary
adj. Capable of being severed or separated; separable into legally distinct rights or obligations, as a contract. --sev”er?a?bil“i?ty n.

INFRINGE
(a) --tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate. --intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: to neglect to obey; as to infringe a law; an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. [Latin ºnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see IN-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- below.] --in?fring“er n.

NO
(b) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. --no n., pl. noes (n½z). 1. A negative response; a denial or refusal: The proposal produced only noes. 2. A negative vote or voter. [Middle English, from Old English n³ : ne, not; see ne below + ³, ever; see aiw- below.] no2 (n½) adj. 1. Not any; not one; not a: No cookies are left. 2. Not at all; not close to being: He is no child. 3. Hardly any: got there in no time flat.

NOT
(c)adv. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.

SHALL
aux.v. past tense should (sh‹d). 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show: a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b. Something, such as an order, a promise, a requirement, or an obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come. 2. Archaic. a. To be able to. b. To have to; must.
Severability
Nevada's Law...NRS 0.020

0.025 Use of “may,” “must,” “shall” is entitled”; explanation of flush lines.
1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in a particular statue or required by the context:
(b) “May not” or “no” abridges or removes a right, privilege or power.
(d) “shall” imposes a duty to act.
(e) “shall not” imposes a prohibition against acting.
Those who are bound by Oath of office with limited delegation of authority must obey and protect it; The Constitution for the united States of America.
A judge has no authority to act until he has taken the oath of office; until he takes the required oath his acts are a nullity, Mancus says, referring to French v. Texas (1978) 572 S.W.2d 934, 939. In that case, a search warrant issued by a judge who had not taken the required oath of office was void and evidence seized under the warrant was inadmissible. Mancus says that Brown v. State (1951) 238 S.W.2d 787, 33, the court held a judge is without authority to act until he takes the oath required by the Constitution.
Why then, does our Government undermine the framers of the Constitution, and those men who fought and lost their lives to protect this great document and country against socialistic tyrants. When Government will not uphold their Oath of office, then they wear the same cloth as those tyrants.. Our Constitution does not give our Government the authority to undermine or rewrite the Constitution for the united States of America, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is to guarantee our protection from capricious, rapacious, incompetent, and uncaring government.
Learn to defend your RIGHTS
This is why we need to make the Oath of Office a relevant issue

The Crown..dead or alive???

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Canada

Executive (The Crown)[show]

Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II)

Governor General of Canada (Michaëlle Jean)

Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Prime Minister (Stephen Harper)
Cabinet (Twenty-Eighth Ministry)
Ministries
President of the Queen's Privy Council
Privy Council Office
Clerk of the Privy Council

Government of Canada
Legislative (Parliament)[show]

Current Parliament (39th)
Senate

Speaker of the Senate
Government Leader in the Senate
Opposition Leader in the Senate
Canadian Senate divisions

House of Commons

Speaker of the House
Government House Leader
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Leader of the Opposition
Opposition House Leader
Shadow Cabinet


Throughout the Commonwealth realms The Crown is an abstract metonymic concept which represents the legal authority for the existence of any government. It evolved naturally as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation-state from the person and personal property of the monarch.

Similar concepts of "The Crown" also operate in other constitutional monarchies, in which (like the United Kingdom) the monarch is Head of State, but the actual governing of the nation is conducted according to the wishes of a democratically elected national legislature. The Holy Crown of Hungary is an example that similar concepts (although in symbolic rather than legal contexts) can survive even in a republic.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Description
* 2 United Kingdom
o 2.1 Crown dependencies
* 3 Other Commonwealth realms
* 4 Crown Servants
* 5 Origins
* 6 Exercise of the Rights of the Crown
* 7 In the courts
* 8 Powers of the Crown
* 9 See also

[edit] Description

The Crown itself is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of the Executive Government. The real crowns (such as Britain's Crown Jewels and the Honours of Scotland) are the property of the Crown, not of the incumbent personally.

Like any corporation, the Crown is an artificial person (in this case, coextensive with a natural person) which can own property and has certain rights as provided by law to business entities. In the case of Commonwealth realms, the rights and powers of the Crown vary from state to state, because each national or state Crown is a separate corporation sole.

The Crown, as presented in the person of the Sovereign who holds the corporation sole, is the legal authority for the existence and operations of the government in each Commonwealth realm (including Australian states and Canadian provinces).

Most operations of the Crown are directed by Ministers of each of the democratically elected national parliaments (including Canadian provincial and Australian state parliaments).

Exceptions include ceremonial operations carried out by the sovereign personally, and the so-called Reserve Powers of the Crown, the parameters of which are established by the constitution of each Commonwealth realm, such as the granting of Royal Assent by the Crown in Parliament to legislative acts, and the formal invitation to form a government. In general, they are exercised by the Monarch directly or by a vice-regal representative (such as a Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor), to ensure that the elected government follows the rules of the national constitution.

For example the Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was displeased with the results of a general election, including the loss of his own seat, he immediately asked Governor-General Byng to call a new election which the Governor-General refused to do; for further details, see King-Byng Affair.

[edit] United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, as an example, The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom is an entity that represents all rulership in the UK, but is separate from the person currently wearing it. For instance, the Queen owns some of her castles herself, such as Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle, and if she abdicated she would keep them. Others, including Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, and Holyrood Palace, belong to the Crown, and would pass on to the next monarch, whoever that would be.

[edit] Crown dependencies

The Crown dependencies are held in Right of the United Kingdom, and the Queen's British ministers have the right to advise her on actions in the dependencies, not their insular ministers.

Although the dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament at Westminster has a competency and ability to legislate directly for them, although by convention does not often do so without the consent of their insular legislatures.

[edit] Other Commonwealth realms

The Crown in each of the Commonwealth realms is a similar but separate legal concept.

Both Canada and Australia are federations: therefore, besides the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, there are Crowns in Right of each Canadian province and each Australian state. For example, there is the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia. The rights which the Crown possesses in right of a Canadian province are exercised by the province's lieutenant-governor (e.g., the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia), not the Governor-General of Canada, and such rights are exercised under the advice of the provincial ministers (not the federal ministers). The situation in Australia is analogous with governors and state ministers instead of the Canadian equivalents.

[edit] Crown Servants

Many government workers in the United Kingdom are Crown Servants. The Crown takes responsibility for upholding the Queen's peace, and traditionally prison warders and police officers were directly employed by the Crown, and not by the Prison Service or Police Authorities. In a related way, there is the Crown Prosecution Service in the criminal courts whose lawyers are called Crown Prosecutors. Those working within the intelligence services such as MI5 and MI6 are also Crown Servants. Crown Servants may not sit as Members of Parliament and this is used as a way of allowing MPs to retire before their time—they are awarded a sinecure job as a Crown Servant and thus disbarred as an MP (see resignation from the British House of Commons). The Crown is also the source of all justice in the UK, which meant that it was immune from prosecution until the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 opened the Crown to ordinary court claims in contract and tort as for any other person.

[edit] Origins

The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal system, evolving from and synthesising oriental and barbarian concepts of kingship. Under the feudal system, in England and (separately) Scotland, all rights and privileges were ultimately granted by the ruler (though this was not the case in all countries that had this system). All land was granted by the Crown to lords, in exchange for feudal services, and they in turn granted the land to lesser lords. One exception to this was common socage—owners of land held as socage held it subject only to the Crown. The Crown as ultimate owner of all property also owns any property which has become bona vacantia.

[edit] Exercise of the Rights of the Crown

In Commonwealth law, the expression "Crown in Right of ..." is often used: e.g., the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Crown in Right of the State of New South Wales, etc.

In practice, the powers of the Crown outside the United Kingdom are rarely exercised by the Monarch directly, but rather by a local vice-regal representative such as a Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, on the advice of the ministers of the appropriate local (federal/national, state or provincial) government. In those few cases where the Monarch exercises powers directly, she again generally does so on the advice of the ministers of that government.

[edit] In the courts

In criminal proceedings, the prosecuting party is the Crown; generally speaking, this is indicated by having Rex (for a male monarch) or Regina (for a female one) v. the defendant as the standard for naming criminal trials; in Australia particularly, on official transcripts of criminal trials the heading page reads "(name of defendant) v. The Queen". Rex and Regina are typically abbreviated R , for example a criminal case against Smith might be R v Smith, read "Crown and Smith".

This practice of using the seat of sovereignty as the injured party is analogous with criminal cases in the United States, where the format is ["the people" or "the State"] v. [the defendant] (e.g. People of the State of New York v. LaValle or State ex rel TLO) per popular sovereignty.

The Crown can also be a plaintiff or defendant in civil actions to which the government of the Commonwealth Realm in question is a party. Such Crown proceedings are often subject to specific rules and limitations, for example about the way judgments against the Crown can be enforced.
Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.


[edit] Powers of the Crown

The powers which belong to each Crown in right of a particular realm can only be exercised on the advice of the ministers of the realm. So, for example, the rights which the Crown possesses in right of the United Kingdom can only be exercised under the advice of British ministers, and the rights which the Crown possesses in right of Canada can only be exercised under the advice of Canadian ministers. The British prime minister cannot advise Her Majesty in exercise of her rights in regard to Canada, nor can the Canadian prime minister advise her in exercise of her rights in regard to the United Kingdom. This applies also to various governments of a federation, so the ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia may not advise the Her Majesty in exercise of her rights in regard to the state of Victoria, for instance, in the appointment of a state Governor.

The monarch, or her appointed representative, has the legal right to refuse the advice of ministers, and act instead in accordance with her personal views. However, these "reserve powers" are almost never used, outside of times of constitutional crisis.

BC for sale??? Creditors tell debtors what to do!

May 9, 2008

The Honourable Pat Bell
Minister of Agriculture and Lands
PO Box 9043, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Via Email: pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca
Dear Minister Bell:
Re: Section 32, Bill 43 – Expropriation Without Compensation
It is with grave concern that we write to you about Section 32 of Bill 43, which purports to legislate expropriation of property by government without compensation.
While the press release accompanying the Bill says this measure is to apply only to crown land, the proposed legislation itself contains no such qualification or limitation in its scope. It is therefore capable of being applied to the expropriation of any property.
The ownership of property is the bedrock of our legal system. Confidence in that ownership and in the integrity of our courts to protect it, and our government to respect it, is central to the rule of law in our society. It is what distinguishes us from totalitarian regimes.
Any doubt by the business community, or by domestic or international investors that their property rights are inviolate in British Columbia, will have a crippling impact on the economic development of our province.
Even if this measure is intended to apply only to crown land, it also captures all private interests in crown land, which is what attracts and drives the development of crown land. Investors in our province must be able to rely on the government grants and contracts that give them these private property interests in crown land or they will take their investments elsewhere.
Mr. Minister, The Vancouver Board of Trade urges you to immediately remove this clause from the Bill.
Sincerely,

Henry K.S. Lee
Chairman and Chief Elected Officer
/jf
cc. The Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier, Government of British Columbia
The Honourable Carole Taylor, Minister of Finance
The Honourable Wally Oppal, Attorney General
The Honourable Colin Hansen, Minister of Economic Development
The Honourable John van Dongen, Solicitor General

Pepsi has gone Godless

Subject: DON'T BUY PEPSI IN THE NEW CAN!
Don't buy Pepsi in the new can. Pepsi has a new 'patriotic' can
Coming out with pictures of the Empire State Building , and the
Pledge of Allegiance on them.
However, Pepsi left out two little words on the pledge,
'Under God.'
Pepsi said they didn't want to offend anyone.
In that case, we don't
Want to offend anyone at the Pepsi corporate office, either!
So if we don't buy any Pepsi product, they will not be offended
When they don't receive our money that has the words
'In God We Trust' on it.
HOW FAST CAN YOU FORWARD THIS ONE?

What Your Government Knows About Cannabis And Cancer -- And Isn't Telling You

What Your Government Knows About Cannabis And Cancer -- And Isn't Telling You

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted June 24, 2008 | 04:20 PM (EST)


Senator Ted Kennedy is putting forward a brave face following his recent surgery but the sad reality remains. Even with successful surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy treatment, gliomas -- a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually -- tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.

But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?

Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain.

In 2007, I reviewed over 150 published preclinical and clinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of marijuana and several of its active compounds, known as cannabinoids. I summarized these numerous studies in a book, now in its third edition, entitled Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.

Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.

In fact, the first experiment documenting pot's potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's primary psychoactive component, THC, "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar -- though secret -- preclinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.

However, rather than publicize their findings, the U.S. government shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.

In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to authorize a single additional study examining the drug's potential anti-cancer properties. (Federal permission is necessary in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because of its illegal status as a schedule I controlled substance.)

Fortunately, in the past 10 years scientists overseas have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can halt the spread of numerous cancer cells -- including prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain cancer. (An excellent paper summarizing much of this research, "Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise," appears in the January 2008 edition of the journal Cancer Research.) A 2006 patient trial published in the British Journal of Cancer even reported that the intracranial administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in humans with advanced glioblastoma.

Writing earlier this year in the scientific journal Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated, "(C)annabinoids have displayed a great potency in reducing glioma tumor growth. (They) appear to be selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells without affecting the viability of nontransformed counterparts." Not one mainstream media outlet reported their findings. Perhaps now they'll pay better attention.

What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S. government officials chosen to advance -- rather than suppress -- clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It's a shame we have to speculate; it's even more tragic that the families of Senator Kennedy and thousands of others must suffer while we do.

Old law proves taxes are unlawful except for regulating commerce

Colonial Tax Repeal Act (1778)

An act for removing all doubts and apprehensions concerning taxation by the parliament of Great Britain in any of the colonies, provinces, and plantations in North America and the West Indies.... Whereas taxation by the parliament of Great Britain for the purpose of raising a revenue in his majesty's colonies, provinces, and plantations in North America has been found by experience to occasion great uneasinesses and disorders among his majesty's faithful subjects, who may nevertheless be disposed to acknowledge the justice of contributing to the common defence of the empire, provided such contribution should be raised under the authority of the general court or general assembly of each respective colony ...: it is hereby declared and enacted ... that, from and after the passing of this act, the king and parliament of Great Britain will not impose any duty, tax, or assessment
whatever, payable in any of his majesty's colonies ... in North America or the West Indies, except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce; the net produce of such duties to be always paid and applied to and for the use of the colony ... in which the same shall be ... levied.

And be it further enacted ... that ... so much of an act made in the seventh year of his present majesty's reign ...[7] as imposes a duty on tea imported from Great Britain into any colony ... in America ... is hereby repealed....

The Oath killing Oath???

Oath to tell a lie


3 / Volume I, Number 7 The Higher Truth
/ www.LWOil.com / www.JoinTheFederation.com / www.PatrickCrusade.org / www.ThinkFree.Ca / www.TheRealPublicRadio.Net
The Oath That Nullifies “The truth and nothing but the truth...” ???

In America’s court system we rely on the assumption, that all parties under oath are telling the truth. Without the truth, justice would be impossible to obtain. Imagine that someone taking an oath to, “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” had previously taken another oath nullifying all of his oaths. Bizarre concept? Read on. Should you ever be involved in a court action, to “insure” justice, there may be some additional questions you might want to add to your discovery, or disposition for the judge, attorney, parties to the action, or the members of your potential jury. This article is not intended to be prejudicial to either the Masons or the Jewish people, the vast majority of whom are God-fearing people. It is merely a comment on those of any race or religion who could be duped into taking such a ridiculous, un-American and dangerous oath. The following is based upon information from: Robert Walker, P.O. Box 301, East Berlin, Pennsylvania, an authority on the subject, who has used this information to obtain the resignation of seven judges and public officials, who did NOT want this made a matter of “Public Record.”

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language, “the Kol Nidre, is the opening prayer recited on the eve of Yom Kippur, containing a declaration of annulment for all personal vows and oaths.” It is based on the following declaration from the Talmud (The most wicked document on the face of the entire earth.):

“He who wishes that his vows and oaths shall have no value, shall stand up at the beginning of the year and say: ‘all vows which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.”

The prayer of “KOL NIDRE” is found in Vol. 8 pg. 539 of the Jewish Encyclopedia. It states:

“All vows, obligations, oaths, anthems, whether called konan, konas, or by any other name, by which we may be bound, from this day of atonement, unto the next...we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, thus made of no effect. They shall not bind us nor have any power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths be oaths.”

This same prayer may also be found almost word for word in the volume of, “Revised Festival Prayers,” published in 1919 by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York.

The Freemason’s have a similar absurd dishonor for oaths. Page 183 of the Masonic “Hand-book” states:

“Whenever you see any of our signs made by a brother Mason, and especially the ‘Grand Hailing Sign’ of distress, you must always be sure to obey them, even at risk of your life. If you’re on a jury, and the defendant is a ‘Mason’ and makes the ‘Grand Hailing Sign,’ you must disagree with your brother jurors; if necessary, you must be sure NOT to bring the Mason ‘guilty,’ for that would bring disgrace upon your order. You must ‘conceal’ all ‘crimes’ of your brother Masons; except murder and treason, and these at your own ‘option,’ and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason, be always sure to shield him. Prevaricate, don’t tell the truth in this case, keep his secrets, forget the important points. It may be ‘perjury’ to do this, but you are keeping your ‘pure-obligations.” (The maxim for following such a ‘deceitful’ practice must be: “Custom is NOT drawn into consequence.” Black’s Law Dict. 2nd, 25, 1910.)

In October of 1983, Roger Rush of Portland, Maine was sued by Zane’s Department Store through its assignee, the G.E. Credit Corp. Rush, who had been researching the oaths that Masons take, knew the judge and attorney were Masons and utilized the information in his defense. In the Depositions for the Equity Discovery Proceeding, Rush presented a copy of the previously cited page of the Mason’s Handbook and presented the following questions to be answered under oath:
1. Are you, Robert A. Cohen, a Mason?
2. Is the judge hearing this matter a Mason?
3. Is/are the owner, or owners of G. E. Credit Corp. Masons?
4. Has anyone involved in this matter taken an oath of “Kol Nidre?”

Within a few days, Rush received a terse, two-sentence letter from attorney Cohen stating, “We have decided not to enter the complaint brought against you in regard to Zane’s Department Store. There will be no court record.”

In the very words of Albert Pike, a Leading Mason: “We intend to destroy all of Christanity” & “We wage all revolutions.

Jewish World wide Conspiracy Exposed by Famous Jew

Benjamin Freedman Speaks: A Jewish Defector Warns America by Benjamin H. Freedman top of page
Introductory Note: Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S.
BENJAMIN FREEDMAN....
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co- religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

Amen is really an Egyptian false god!

Chapter 8: IT’S ALL OVER, AMEN

Why does Christian orthodoxy refrain on one hand from ascribing a name to the Creator God, while on the other hand, at the end of its prayers, invoking the ancient name of AMUN, in the form of ‘Amen’? The Hebrew religion itself uses several names to express the Great Spirit, such as YAHWEH, EL and JEHOVAH. But the name AMEN (aka AMUN, AMMON) was that of the prime pagan god of the Egyptians, the enemies and oppressors of the Israelites. Are we looking at an ancient plot which was hatched with the intent to forevermore subvert the integrity of Judeo-Christian worship and prayer? If so, then for countless generations we have all been spiritually hindered by this deception...
As JESUS preached The Lord’s Prayer on the mountainside, did he also verbally invoke the word-name ‘Amen’ at the end of his prayers? If not, then this tradition was introduced later by the Amunist Romans, possibly in the pre-Catholic church days, shortly after 300 AD. Modern Hebrews have no sacred context for the word ‘amen’, they have simply assumed through all these years that the Christians invoked it simply because it sounds a little like their own word emuna or emanu , meaning ‘belief ’. If ‘Amen’ was being ritually invoked at the first time of The Christ, JESUS, then it must have become established religious practice in earlier Judaic history. Modern Christian priests have simply, and rather blindly, accepted that the word 'amen' means: “Let it be”, when clearly it means no such thing in any language whatever. But this is what they are taught, and what they in turn teach to we who know nothing. What the word-name really means, in Ancient Egyptian, is ‘The Hidden One’.
The word-name ‘Amen’ is first mentioned in The Bible by the prophet ISAIAH (circa 700 BC), who urges the Israelites to worship “the Amen...the god of truth”. ISAIAH appears to advocate the worship of a pagan god when thus mentioning ‘the Amen’ in the Old Testament, which was prohibited in the Covenant of MOSES. AMUN, whom I believe ISAIAH was referring to, was not in any objective sense a 'god of truth', he was a god of war, of dominion over other peoples, being equivalent to Aries (Greek) and Mars (Roman). The name of the pagan god of war stems from the Ancient Egyptian "imn", which is expressed variously as Amun, Amon, Ammon, Oumon, and Amen, plus, of course, the derivative Biblical name of Mammon
Today’s Hebrew scholars casually believe that the Christian usage of the word ‘amen’ derives from their own word ‘emanu / emuna’ (‘belief’), however this assumption is based purely on the similarity of sound (ie. it is a transliteration), not on any intellectual, theological, or thematic consistency. Would we not expect at least a smattering of tradition to surround the word that has for so long been taught to us as the appropriate way to end all of our prayers? And why, after all this time, have Hebrew scholars not tried to explain the praising of the Egyptian god within the pages of The Bible?...
It has long been thought that the ancient Hebrew religion was somehow meddled with in antiquity, its integrity quietly and effectively distorted from the central truth. Further changes were also made when the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts were translated for religious bodies in the 1st Millennium BC. Could the word ‘amen’ at some time have been employed as a magical seal, set upon prayers to divert the intent of all those who sought to worship YHWH, the One God of the Hebrews? Is it, moreover, a coincidence that the holy name given to Jerusalem, the mount of Sion, should be spelled with the initial letters of the four principle gods of the Egyptians? These were SET, ISIS, OSIRIS and NEBTHET - SION. This sacred tetrad of divinities lies at the core of inherited religious, mythic, astrological and esoteric belief.
The variant names AMUN, AMEN and AMMON all refer to the deity who was called ‘The Hidden One’, or ‘The Secret One’. His hidden characteristic likens AMUN to the enigmatic ATUM, the Egyptian name reserved for the Sun-deity during the event of the evening sunset. AMUN’s name was used to revere the solar deity after sunset, during the dark hours of the night, as AMEN-RE. The Egyptians were sure that the Sun was still out there in the night sky, even though they could not see it. The priests performed rituals and chanted praises to AMUN’s golden image throughout the night hours, worshipping him in his hidden sanctuary at Karnak, to encourage the Sun to rise up again in the morning, whereupon it would then be exalted anew as RE. The golden statue of AMUN identifies him as a deity with strong solar significance, along with his representing the first Zodiac sign (Aries) of the new solar year, a fire sign...
In astrological terms, AMUN equates to the Ram of the Greek god ARIES (and the Roman MARS), the Initiator of the Spring season. ARIES is also the god of war, perhaps because Spring has always been the perfect time to launch offensives on one’s enemies, with the whole Summer season yet to follow. The god of war inspired his worshippers to conquer others and to build empires on the bloody ground of their conquests. Whether as ARIES, MARS or AMUN, the worship of the Ram-headed god inspired men to many wars. This sign is associated with fire, the transmuting element of alchemy, for all that survives the test of fire is thus hardened. It was against the Amunist priests whom MOSES struggled in Egypt, circa 1465 BC, and then again in the Exodus period, when he opposed a pharaoh whose name (I believ) was AMEN-HOTEP ('Amun is satisfied'), to whom MOSES appealed for the freedom of his people. A later proponent of monotheism, Pharaoh AKHENATEN of Egypt, also conflicted with the Amunist priesthood around 1350 BC, ultimately failing to end completely the stranglehold which AMUN held over all in the land. Much later, circa 700 BC, King MANNASSEH of Israel (whose son he named AMON) ordered his men to kill all the priests of Jerusalem, because they had resisted his introduction of pagan gods into the holy city. The Amunist Romans, circa 300 AD, re-wrote many of the New Testament texts, providing ample opportunity then to edit in any required changes. Although it remains a mystery as to who it was that introduced the tradition of this invocation, when they did so, it is surely almost beyond question that something here is out of its proper place. When you say your prayers, please do be careful who you send them to...

END OF SAMPLE

More exposure of deception regarding RFK's death

New evidence challenges official picture of Kennedy shooting

* James Randerson, Washington DC
* guardian.co.uk,
* Friday February 22 2008
* Article history

About this article
Close
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday February 22 2008. It was last updated at 12:58 on March 03 2008.

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday March 3 2008

In the report below (regarding new interpretations of forensic evidence relating to the assassination of Robert Kennedy) we stated that he was hit by four shots. However, only three bullets entered his body; the fourth was lodged in a shoulder pad. One of the pistols referred to was a Harrington & Richardson and not, as we had it, a Harrison & Richardson. This has been corrected.

The official record states that senator Robert F Kennedy, like his brother before him, was killed by a crazed lone gunman. But the assassination of a man who seemed to embody so much hope for a bitterly divided country embroiled in an unpopular war still troubles this nation.

Little about the official explanation of the events at the Ambassador Hotel on June 5 1968 makes sense. Now a new forensic analysis of the only audio recording of the fatal shots has given new weight to a controversial theory that there were in fact two shooters, and that the man convicted of Kennedy's killing — Sirhan Sirhan - did not fire the fatal shots.

Following his victory speech to supporters after clinching a tight democratic primary victory in California, Kennedy left the podium in the Embassy ballroom to address a press conference.

Bloody mayhem

But the shortcut he and his entourage took through the hotel's pantry quickly descended into bloody mayhem. As Kennedy turned from shaking hands with two of the kitchen staff, a gunman stepped forward and began firing. Kennedy was hit by four shots including one which lodged in the vertebrae in his neck and another which entered his brain from below his right ear. He died in hospital the following day. Five other people were injured but survived.

Sirhan - a Palestinian refugee who said he wanted to "sacrifice" Kennedy "for the cause of the poor exploited people" - was quickly apprehended. He was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment.

"Sirhan was apprehended at the scene with literally a smoking gun," said acoustic forensic expert Philip Van Praag of PVP Designs, who has carried out the new analysis. "At the beginning many people looked upon this as an open-and-shut case. It was one man, Sirhan Sirhan, who was observed by a number of people, who aimed and fired a gun in the direction of Kennedy's entourage."

Close range

But the lone gunman explanation has always looked shaky. The autopsy of Kennedy's body suggested that all four shots that hit him came from behind, and powder marks on his skin showed they must have been from close range.

But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and in the victims.

"There is no doubt in our minds that no fewer than 14 shots were fired in the pantry on that evening and that Sirhan did not in fact kill Senator Kennedy," said Robert Joling, a forensic scientist who has been involved with the Kennedy case for nearly 40 years. He and Van Praag have published a book on the killing this week entitled "An Open and Shut Case".

The inconsistencies in the case have bred numerous conspiracy theories, including the involvement of the CIA and the idea that Sirhan - who claims not to remember the shooting and pleaded insanity at his trial - was a "Manchurian Candidate" assassin who was hypnotically programmed to kill the senator.

Audio recording

Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

To recreate this he recorded the sounds made by firing the Iver Johnson and another revolver, a Harrington and Richardson 922. At least one member of Kennedy's entourage was carrying this weapon when the killing happened. In the acoustic tests it produced the same frequency anomalies Van Praag had seen in the original recording but only when fired away from the microphone.

He presented his results on Thursday at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting in Washington DC.

Paul Schrade, a close associate of Kennedy's who was director of the United Auto Workers union, was at the senator's side in the pantry and was shot in the head. He told the meeting that America lost an outstanding leader and potentially great president that day.

Lost hope

"I think we were in a position of really changing this country," he said. "What we lost was a real hope and possibility of having a better country and having better relations around the world."

He wants to see the case reopened and properly investigated. "We're going to go ahead and do our best to find out who the second gunman was and that's going to take a lot of work," he said.

Van Praag also wants the case reexamined. "We would hope that the evidence that we have uncovered ... would make a strong enough case to get serious consideration once again by the authorities," he said.