I think it is time to discuss the reason for this series. Perhaps, for some, it is past time. And for a few, they think they already know the reason. Sorry, that isn’t it.

The reason is simple. The sole purpose of this series is to teach you to do something that not many Americans have any ability to do today, and that is to think. To take time out from what you think is so important in your daily routine and think. Not only while you are reading these papers, but while you are working, driving, conversing with others, and especially, while you are watching the TV. If, at any time, these papers have interfered with your daily routine, then I am beginning to accomplish what I have set out to do. Thinking is possibly the most important part of us, and if you do not believe this, then simply look around you at the myriad of things which have been created to occupy your time. Time much better spent in thinking.

Once you are able to think again, once you understand the reasons for television and the rest of the nonsense of this world, the existence of God and His Works are simple to see. The organization of His Law and His Universe is so exact, so simple and so all-encompassing that no one who can think can deny it. So, basically, a re-kindling of your ability to think coupled with an exposure to the Truth, which is Him, is the reason for this work.

Pretty basic, really. But then, so is life.

The Part to follow was written many years ago. It covers much of the foundation of man’s law which occurred in this country, and is very interesting. At least, to me it is. But, and I did not know this when I wrote it, it does not cover the really important information. Some of that you have already seen. Here’s a little more:

When Burney Brushears talks about his book and about sovereignty, you should listen. Because it is possible, by their rules!

I did not know this until a short time ago, but the World Court issued a ruling in 1976 which bears on the subject of sovereignty for all people of this earth. They said, simply, that all people are sovereign over the respective governments of each country. Of course, they did this so that they would have a reason to interfere in each country’s internal affairs as they move closer to a world wide government. And they did it, as they do all things, for personal gain.

But that is not the important part. The important part is that this ruling has been reduced to treaties which every nation under the domination of the bankers has signed, because they had no choice. They are under contract to them. There are exceptions, such as Iraq, if you want just an inkling of what is really going on in the Middle East. The people of Iraq refuse to knuckle under to the New World Order.

The problem that We the People have is that most of us are still under contract to them, unlike the Iraqis, and when you go into one of their private, contract courts (see ending of this Part for a real definition of what happened to the courts), they win. It is their system, so why should we expect any other result. In Scripture, we are told to stay out of their courts, because to be in their courts, you must be under contract to them. A private contract with them negates your contract with Him, for protection and for health. Now, once under contract, you must obey your masters on this earth, and the same is true about this ruling of the World Court. The men I have talked to about this are quite sure that the bankers did not realize what they were doing, primarily because they did not believe that there would be those who have no contracts with them, through the respective governments controlled by the bankers.

Unfortunately for them, that is not necessarily true. Anyway, the simple wording of the ruling leaves all people of the earth in the position of, if I understand correctly, switching back and forth between the artificial personas they wish us to operate under and sovereignty, as suits us. Pretty good, if you understand the law, and can initiate the proper paper work. Well, the people I work with are in the process of doing just that, and have two cases headed for the Supreme Court right now. In addition, they have had two judges and a number of IRS agents quit their jobs rather than face the consequences of action in a real court of law, as ordained under the Constitution for actions taken which are contrary to the limitations placed upon them when dealing with Sovereigns.

The next few years should be very interesting, for those who have eyes and can see, that is. For the others, it is liable to be a very trying time indeed.


There are, in the face of new developments coming on line, a couple of other points which must be covered. Everything you see around you is a lie. I know; I have said this before.

But not in the sense that I am now going to bring forth.

I have a copy of a page from the Handbook of Delegation Orders, Internal Revenue Service, page 1229-91 (1-17-83). It is very interesting. One of the paragraphs, the third one down, says:

Recommend an additional monetary award of $10,000 (total $35,000) to the President through Treasury and OPM.

What this is referring to is that for EVERY indictment for tax evasion "within" the United States, the President of the United States receives a payment of $35,000. Now, there is other verbiage in the first two paragraphs which refer to "Merit Pay Cash Awards" and such which are references to the payments made to each federal judge and the United States attorneys, but that is a different subject.

Think back to Clinton pleading for money for his "defense" from morons all across the "United States." And how much he collected! Don’t you think he was snickering just a little, while doing that? There are literally hundreds of indictments for "tax evasion" every year for which he gets paid. And if this is true at the top of the heap in the United States, you can rest assured that it is true all the way down the ladder. It has to be, for the ones who keep him in power MUST receive a dividend or they support someone else for power. And everyone goes to seek "justice" when it is all about contracts and money. Interesting.

You see, it is a game. You’ve heard it said, he who dies with the most toys, wins! People like Clinton, and Gore, believe this. There are no laws; it is a democracy. The biggest bully rules, and they support what they hope is a winner, and "pray" he sees fit to give them a nice piece of the action. Laws? They don’t need no stinkin’ laws! Well, yes, they do, if you can call paper written by men "laws." But they need these strictly for the appearance of "legality" so that those they prey on don’t realize, at least, so not to many of them realize, what is really going on, which is "legal plunder."

There is a very good line in the movie Peter Pan: "I ain’t never going to grow up!" And that adequately describes such men; they have never grown up. They believe that they answer to no one except the next biggest bully on the block, and anything he says is OK, they can do, regardless of the damage it does to other people; regardless of the damage it does to themselves. They answer to no higher power and work only for the rewards, or supposed rewards, of this earth. While they work for what they think are the rewards of this earth, the real rewards, happiness, a good family, friends, health, all of these things are denied to them.

Slaves can not be happy, nor content, and their family can only function within the concept permitted by the bully; The family can never be first. The bully utilizes the precepts of the True God with out even realizing what he does; the bully must be first or he can not be supreme.

When we choose God first, then the completeness of His Law furnishes the best result possible for all. When a child is disrespectful to an elder or to another child, we have a moral obligation to correct the child. Why? Because it will make the child’s life easier. Respect is simply allowing another space in which to live. Yet in this world, the bully says differently, and if you doubt this, simply walk through a public school in one of the major cities of the United States.

When we observe a neighbor beating his wife, we have a moral obligation to intervene. Why? Because the man is damaging himself, as Scripture tells us a man and a woman become one, and we have a moral obligation to be our neighbor’s keeper. Yet in this world, the bully says differently, and he says so for profit, and if you doubt this, simply walk through today’s courthouses and count the number of lawyers and physiologist making money, and paying taxes, out of the grief and anguish primarily caused by the bully’s monetary system.

When you look around you at the world, and at the games being played, the real meaning of "growing up" becomes clear; Quit playing games! It is time to learn, and to take personal responsibility for ourselves, our family, our friends, and our relationship with the One True God. No one can do this for us, nor can they lead us to Him! We each must make a personal decision to accept Him, not only for Salvation, but as King. I hear many people praying for His return to the earth, "where He will Rule Supreme for a thousand years!" Do you expect that He will Rule without His Law?

To accept the premise that "there is no law" is to suffer the vengeance of Him, because He spoke the Law! To be a United States citizen IS to accept the premise that there is no law.

Have you ever looked at Al Gore’s book on the ecology? It is interesting, to say the least. There is not one word or source listed for which there is a scientific basis, but the demand for "fixing the environment" comes through loud and clear. And, if you understand the words he uses and the concepts behind them, the message is clear; the commoners are using to many resources. Like cars. Or like real health and life. And they need to "pay their fair share." Lord Gore has spoken, and we should listen. The laws already exist to deny most people access to cars and to lock down the health care of the rabble, as well as much more complete control of the production and distribution of food, all in the name of "the people." For reference, see Russia in the 1920s.

Our job is to chastise our People (this means to enforce the Law among our People), and leave Satan’s minions to work their vengeance upon each other, always through governments of this earth, control over which is always the main theme of wars. That means we need to grow up and accept the rule of Law, as opposed to the rule of GIMME! To accept Who is King, and Who has Sovereignty over the earth; Satan, or the One True God? As you think about this, consider what is in store for Satan’s "people" as you read the following.



Joe L. Jordan (

"NETWORK EVENING NEWS tonight showed a classroom full of Hanoi gooks at the FBI Academy at Langley, Virginia. The classes were being conducted by the same jack-booted thugs who killed women and babies at Waco and Ruby Ridge."


The FBI Academy is located on the United States Marine Corps Base at Quantico, and is situated on 385 wooded acres of land providing the security, privacy, and safe environment necessary to carry out the diverse training and operational functions for which the FBI is responsible. See

Then go to the FBI International Training Program at the following website and read WHY they are NOW international.

QUOTING FROM THEIR WEB PAGE: The breakup of the former Soviet Union and the move to democracy by all of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is forcing profound change, not only in the region, but throughout the world. These changes are not merely political, but have significant impact on national economies, social structures, and law enforcement. The weakening or elimination of borders and the increased availability of electronic forms of communication and commerce have allowed criminals almost unlimited mobility. These social, political, and economic changes have occurred much faster than the ability of law enforcement to respond to these new challenges. This is particularly true in some emerging democracies of the world, who have ill-equipped and poorly trained police, little if any money, and inadequate laws that are not effective in allowing the police to attack organized criminal enterprises. (Read this as saying that they do not have the ability to effectively eliminate opposition to the New World Order of the bankers. - David)

If these organized criminal enterprises with roots elsewhere in the world are allowed to grow and migrate beyond their borders, they will inevitably invade the United States. The Director of the FBI is charged with the duty to detect, investigate, and assist in the prosecution of crimes committed against the United States and its citizens. The establishment of effective international police liaison is a critical task in carrying out this mission. The development of effective police training programs are proven ways to ensure international police cooperation. The mission of the International Training Section, located at Quantico, Virginia, is to administer and coordinate all international mission-oriented training for the FBI. Through coordination with other FBI operational divisions, the International Relations Section, Dept. of Justice - Office of Inter- national Programs, the Dept. of State, and affected United States' embassies overseas, prioritized training is provided in support of the FBI's international investigative responsibilities.

International training initiatives fall into seven basic categories:

1. International country assessments/evaluations and/or needs analysis;

2. International in-country (outside the 50 states) training;

3. International training conducted in the United States;

4. FBI instructor development and cultural awareness;

5. International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), Budapest, Hungary;

6. Mexican/American Law Enforcement Training (MALET) initiative; and

7. The Pacific Rim Training Initiative (PTI).

MORE authority was given to the FBI and federal law enforcement with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill. See S-735 - ( for the outline of the bill or for the full text (which is VERY long). These federal police agencies have been give more power with the passage of every crime bill passed by Congress for the past "several years".... (Note: this means by the "republican" Congress. - David) the worst one being the 1996 Crime bill (see

Don't YOU think it is time to WAKE UP and STOP THE NEW WORLD ORDER NOW!!! No, the New World Order is not coming - it is HERE - and the United States (de facto) government is running the show (It always has been. - David). If you don't believe me - go to the New York City web page at

GREATER NEW YORK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION - 1898-1998. The year 1998 marks the Centennial of the consolidation of the "various communities lying in and around the New York harbor" into what is known everywhere today as New York City, "the Capital of the World." Here at NYC LINKTM, we offer links to our archives, as well as suggestions for outside visits to explore the rich history of our city's past. Historical information on the Consolidation of the Five Boroughs into New York City Centennial Events

"To Deny the Constitution is to Provoke Revolution"


I really like the end; To Deny the Constitution is to Provoke Revolution. These people have not grown up, and probably never will. They will insist in "believing" what they wish to be true, never looking at the facts. They react, as children do, to outside stimulus and not verifiable facts. Perhaps, one day, if the pain becomes great enough, they too will join with Him, and us, in America.

On the other hand, the men who attend the FBI Academy and who do the teaching can not join us; their "faith" prevents them. They have chosen their masters, and for their daily bread, even while the population control measures so common now on the earth are practiced on them and on their children, they can not see. And if they could see, for just a moment, they probably could not change what they are or what they do. They would simply, after falling over the Truth, pick themselves up, brush themselves off, and continue on their way. If you doubt this, see the slaughter of millions in Russia and China, and never forget for a moment that the slaughter was not done by "outsiders" but by the people of each nation slaughtering each other at the whim of their chosen "kings."

I look back at my life, and I can recognize different water-shed events, as any one can. One of the most telling for me was the day I learned about diet pop. I was visiting with a friend who is a chemist, and somehow the conversation got around to pop and, in particular, diet pop. Now, up to that time, I drank a lot of pop (probably, the subject came up because of what I was drinking at that moment), perhaps as much as a six pack a day, all diet. Why not? It’s better for me, right? I mean, all the advertising says it is...

But my friend had a different story, and his story was about formaldehyde and the plastic sweetener used in diet pop. And the details about what it does to the body, and in particular, to the vascular system of our blood supply. On that day, I quit drinking diet pop. I have never had another one, and never will. In fact, since that day, over nine years ago, I have had only two partial cans of 7-UP for an upset stomach (and I won’t do that again either), and some Ginger Ale in a mixed drink or two, or so... And since I mostly drink only red wine now (see the book Eat Right for Your Type, my blood type is A), my consumption of pop is basically zero, as it must be if I am to remain healthy, and equally importantly, regain the health I lost through poor knowledge and understanding.

What I did not realize at the time of stopping drinking pop is that I had, on that day, taken a major step in growing up. Of making a choice deliberately of denying myself something that I was all but addicted to because I had received the knowledge that it was bad for me. Growing up. Since that time, each and every choice that I have made which has moved me further from the world of man with all of it’s filth and corruption has been easier. Does this mean that I have become a Righteous Man? Of course not. I still miss many things that exist for our pleasure in the world of man, and still enjoy some of them on occasion, such as a football game on TV. But not very often, and as I learn more, it is easier for me to turn my back on them.

And note what I said above; since that time. This change in me did not happen over-night, and it will not for you either. But, if you continue to study and learn, the change is inevitable. I am changing now. I will continue to change until the day I die, because I now have no choice.

I have been told, a number of times, that I am "different." I suppose this is true. I have been told that I look at things in black and white when I should know that everything is in shades of color, and never absolute. I just laugh. I haven’t studied the Bible as I should, yet, but I know the difference between what I wish were true and what is true, and the difference is as plain as night and day. Or black and white. There are absolutes, and accepting this is necessary in growing up. And then I look around me at the world, the world that people say I am different from, and all I can say is...

I see people feeding a six month old child pop...

I see mothers buying formulas for their babies instead of breast feeding, and having "faith" that some multi-national corporation, for profit, is going to see to it that their baby is properly nourished...

I see a two year old child being feed concentrated sweets and highly refined sugar along with white bread in most of their meals, and then parents wondering why their children are anti-social and high strung... and addicted to sweets in later life...

I see parents agreeing to put their children on drugs so the schools can get more money for "problem" children...

I see many, many two worker-bees families, with both parents working outside the home for the "American dream" while others raise their children for them, and they pay a 70% accumulative tax rate, and the husband and wife are no longer "in love" and they have no idea of why...

I see many, many people raging at the system, while working as hard as possible to support it and participate in it, and with no knowledge or understanding of what it is that they support or participate in, but they have "faith"...

And these same people say how different I am... Well, so be it, and by the Grace of The One True God, I pray daily that it remains so.


There Is Always a Reason for Circumstances to Exist

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations), too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." Thomas Jefferson.

However difficult you may find the information in this Report, it is necessary for America's well-being that you study this Report until you understand all of the information contained herein. Remember, your family's and your own well-being is intimately tied in with the well-being of America and of her People and with the Laws which govern America. Understanding the information in this Part, just as understanding our economic system, is the only way you can help start America back on the long road to freedom. The information in this Report is the basis by which the predatory actions, worked against the Citizens of America as described in Part VI, are permitted to be done.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that we have God-given Rights. Never forget what I just told you: the Constitution grants no rights to the People of America! All the Constitution does is establish an exclusive jurisdiction for Congress and puts absolute limits on the actions of any official of that "government" outside of that exclusive jurisdiction. The Constitution does not acknowledge any God-given Rights! God-given Rights are our property. Property, according to the Constitution, can not be taken from us except through due process or by our voluntarily surrendering that property (Read this as contracting away those Rights).

The great majority of the People of America have lost their property through contracts. Most of those same People do not even realize that they are under contract to various shadow, legal entities. Because the nature and intent of these contracts were not revealed to you prior to your entering into them, the contracts are null and void if you wish them to be null and void. Not everyone wants out of these contracts. Some people wear their chains willingly. Some still believe, for whatever strange reason, that they will gain more from having the chains than they are forced to give up.

The Second Thirteenth Amendment

When you use Federal Reserve Notes, you enter into a contract. How do you enter into a contract by using Federal Reserve Notes? This part of the story goes back to 1865 and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Author's note: The Thirteenth Amendment is actually the Fourteenth Amendment, or, if you wish to be particularly accurate, the first amendment to the second Constitution which pertains strictly to Washington, DC, and the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress therein. The real Thirteenth Amendment was illegally removed from our law books in the mid to late 1800s. You can still find copies of it in old law books. I know because I have. What this means is that there are TWO Constitutions, two governments, and two systems operating side by side. Unfortunately, the first system is invisible to most People).

The Second Amendment XIII:

SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Is that pretty plain? It is if you know how to read it. In the first place, if the men who wrote the Thirteenth Amendment intended to eliminate servitude in the United States that is what they would have written: Neither slavery nor servitude ...shall exist within the United States. Instead, they wrote involuntary servitude, and that wording specifically allows voluntary servitude. Understanding this involves us in law construction, in other words, in the use of words to construct a law. If the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment had left just the word servitude in the amendment, it would be something simple and easy to enforce and to understand. Whenever qualifying words are added to simple law, it is always for a reason, just as when you write 2000 pages of special interest benefits for a few elite and restrictions on the rest of the people of a nation into a free trade treaty (called NAFTA).

?Why are there two Constitutions? And what are the meanings behind some of the "amendments" to the Constitution? For instance, the "anti-slavery" amendment, the thirteenth, what, exactly, does it mean, legally? What does the Supreme Court say about the Thirteenth Amendment?

?"The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government." United States v. Morris, 125 Federal Reporter, page 322, 325.

?What does the Supreme Court say about the Fourteenth Amendment?

?"The amendment (fourteenth) reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution," United States v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases, 785, 794.

I wonder why this is never talked about or discussed in "our" government sponsored "public schools"? I wonder why we are never taught that the purpose of the Constitution was to see to it that the states and the People were never bothered in their day to day work and life by the agents of the King?

Admiralty Jurisdiction Statutes

When you use Federal Reserve Notes, you enter into a voluntary servitude contract with the federal United States government and the Federal Reserve Bank as well as the legal entities behind the FED. This makes you subject to admiralty jurisdiction statutes, not of the Constitution and, of course, the income tax, which is collected for the benefit of and paid directly to the owners of the Federal Reserve.

Admiralty jurisdiction statutes are equity statutes or, if you prefer, contract law. Everything that you do and everything that you are is defined by a contract when you are under admiralty, or equity, jurisdiction. Those contracts can be with another individual, a business, another social group or race or with the government. These contracts can be with any entity which has standing before the courts, even without your knowledge or informed consent. Under equity law, everything that you sign becomes a contract (Author's note: We are suppose to assume that these are Laws, when they are actually nothing but statutes). This occurs whether you are aware of it or not, and the hidden nature of these contracts are prima facie evidence of their fraudulent intent. Simply put, these hidden contracts permit the Elite to rule from behind the scenes without the informed consent of the People of this nation (or any other nation) and in direct opposition to the law which was supposedly written to prevent this very situation from developing.

Any situation which develops from law can be determined to be the intended result of that law. There are no accidents in politics. If the intended result was/is different than that which exists, they would change the law!

Equity statutes mean that every relationship you have is defined by a contract and an equity: a value. This means that every misdeed also has a value. When a rich man misbehaves, he generally will pay a fine rather than be punished. A middle class individual, even if proven innocent, will generally go broke defending himself. The poor, on the other hand, are the real victims in this system. They are virtually defenseless in an equity situation and have to depend upon a so-called lawyer, an officer of the court, appointed by the court to obtain as low of a fine and/or jail sentence as is possible. They are generally forced, regardless of guilt or innocence, to take whatever is offered to them. This is why plea bargaining has become so prevalent. And this also shows another reason why the prisons are so crowded now.

If you study history, particularly the history of the British Empire, you will find references to the criminal intent of those who run prisons throughout that history. Of people sold into slavery from prisons, of slave labor used from prisons in nearby factories, of work shops established by specially privileged individuals or companies in prisons, and I will guarantee to you that this same thing is happening here now. Under the guise of "there is too much money being spent on these criminals". And, if you will look, you will find that the largest growth industry on Wall Street is prisons, because they are so profitable! After all, they are a direct tap by the elite into the tax structure of the citizens of the United States.

Under Equity, There Can Be No Absolutes

This is also why we are being taught that there are no absolutes. If something is absolutely wrong, someone must be punished for the commission of that something. On the other hand, if we can establish a value for each misdeed, then we acknowledge that it can not be absolutely, morally wrong to do it. If the average time spent in prison by a murderer in America is about seven years, and if the average annual income in America is $28,000 (or whatever), we have an established value for human life, in America, of about $200,000. Actually, with the shrinkage of income in America and with the reduced sentences that convicted murderers are now serving, something in the area of five and one-half years instead of seven years, I think you will find the value of a life in America is considerably less than $200,000.

Watch what the government comes up with in its figure for what we "...can afford to spend on the elderly." Use the formula involving what a murderer spends in prison and the median income in your area for establishing the value of a human life in America and see just how close I am to being right. It should not be hard for anyone to understand how a system like this benefits the rich and how closely it correlates to how the royalty in Europe were treated in centuries past. Of course, the richer you are, the better the system protects you. What do you think would be the chances of bringing David Rockefeller to "justice" in an equity court? Speaking of the poor, as we were a few moments ago, do you recall all of the talk about the middle class disappearing? Where do you suppose the middle class is going to end up?

This is not a situation which has come about by accident. Nor is it an accident that you are not aware of most of the contracts in which you are involved. If the American government had explained to the People of this nation the meaning of most of the papers they have signed so trustingly, there would have been a revolution long before now.

Mr. Jack Colson

Some time ago, I was fortunate enough to find a paper written by a gentleman named Jack Colson. I've never met Mr. Colson, and I don't even know what he does, but the paper he wrote is one of the best, most thorough discussions concerning the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and how they relate to the rights (property) of a citizen in America that I have ever been fortunate enough to find. Please permit me to quote from Mr. Jack Colson quite extensively in this Report:

At the time the Constitutional Contract of 1787 was established the term Citizen of the United States had a specific meaning. The Constitution for the United States of America begins: "We the People of the United States... to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution is the organic law of the United States and established therein is the precept that each Citizen is a sovereign in International Law of equal status with any other sovereign; e.g., the King or Queen of England.

Might that have irritated someone? Would the Queen of England be upset that the Constitution allows each colonist in America to consider and declare himself to be the equal of the Lords and Ladies of England? This equality of the colonist included the fact that they were the equal of the elite and the super rich as well as the Royalty of England. This was the first time a system of law existed, outside of the Bible, which would hold men like the Rothschilds accountable for their actions. This was not acceptable to the Elite rich. (A brief note; the above is true, as the Constitution is the organic law of the United States, but not of America, as the two are separate and distinct legal entities. It was only in America that the so-called elite had a problem.) Mr. Colson continues:

This precept was confirmed in the celebrated case Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 394, 15 L Ed 691 (1856), where the U.S. supreme Court was asked to consider whether those of the African race compose a portion of the "sovereign people"? On page 404 they answered the inquiry by stating: "We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for or secures to Citizens of the united States."

In the original Constitution only the members of the white race are Citizens and they constitute the sovereignty of the United States. The Court held that a man of African decent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a Citizen of a state or of the United States due to incapacity of race. He was not a Citizen for he had no rights, he was merely a thing, chattel property, in the eyes of the law.

However, this was not the only important point stressed in the Dread Scott decision. The first point of the decision was that a Negro, being not a united States citizen, had no right to sue in federal court. But the decision went much further than this, and these are the points which are never discussed anywhere. The court, in its majority decision (5-4), ruled that the Missouri Compromise (on the question of slavery) was void, because Congress had no power over territories except to prepare for their admission to the Union, and slaves being private property, Congress had no right to exclude them anywhere. This also meant that, outside of Washington, DC, whatever powers Congress lacked would be lacked by any territorial legislature created by Congress.

This created some serious problems for those who held power over DC and brought to a head the States Rights vs. the federal power confrontation which had been brewing ever since the Constitution was adopted, for obvious reasons, once the real basis of the Constitution is understood.

Six months after the end of the Civil War the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States was ratified. Prior to its ratification, there was no constitutional warrant for the US government to own people. The Amendment's sole purpose being to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, it said nothing about voluntary servitude. The term involuntary servitude in legal construction means that had the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit servitude, they would have said servitude and would not have qualified the term by the word involuntary. When they qualified servitude by involuntary, it meant that they contemplated voluntary. In the public schools we all were taught that the Thirteenth Amendment freed the black man, it did free him from a condition of direct slavery but it left him in a condition of servitude. For at the close of the Civil War the black man was the prize capture property of The United States Government and he was rightless. At which time he was told that if he wanted to leave this country he could do so at any time as he was here voluntarily, but for as long as he chose to stay here he was in a condition of voluntary servitude.

Do you understand what Mr. Colson just said? "Prior to its ratification (of the Thirteenth Amendment) there was no Constitutional warrant for the US Government to own people. He didn't say black people, or red or yellow or pink, blue or green people. He said people. When you force an inequity into the basic governing laws of any nation or "jurisdiction", is it surprising that the entire body of the people of that nation end up sinking into that inequity? Of course not; it is the expected and intended result.

Intent is the Real Meaning of Any Law

It should be perfectly understandable that the men who write laws understand EXACTLY what both the intent and the ultimate result of each law are going to be. It should also be readily understood that the men responsible, if the real framers of the Thirteenth Amendment could be identified, understood exactly what they were writing and intended exactly the result we have today: voluntary servitude of the entire mass of the people of the united States of America and the disappearance of sovereignty as a concept of and for the people.

Note the non-capitalization of United. This refers to the federal government as established in Washington, DC, opposed to the Constitutionally contracted united States where the states are sovereigns in their own right and the federal government is an agent for the states. Citizens are Citizens of the united States and of the state wherein they are domiciled, and citizens are the subjects of the United States. Since the Constitution guarantees that the states shall have a republican form of government, the only legal, de jure government, which is permissible under the law, is the united States of America, governed from each state "capital" and with their international relations handled through Washington, DC. In this regard, there has been a deliberate effort to subvert the meaning and intent of the Constitution. It is also important to note that today there is a different meaning within the description of Citizen of a State than existed at the time of the Civil War.

(Author's note: united, when used properly in united States, is an adjective, and not a part of the name of our nation. Our nation was intended to be a group of sovereign nation/states banded together for self defense, thus united. This was why there were only 21 powers enumerated for the federal government by the Constitution outside of Washington, DC. Once you understand this difference, the term united States takes on an entirely different meaning within your understanding of the separation of powers which forms the foundation of freedom in America. It is impossible to form a dictatorship in America EXCEPT through the United States where the states are made the chattel property of the federal government by contract. Sovereignty of the states is as important to freedom in America as is sovereignty of the individual. Freedom must be a constant throughout the nation or freedom CAN NOT exist! It is surprising, when reading much of the information so carefully concealed from the time of the mid 1800s, how many men of that era understood much more of the real situation in America than the vast majority of Americans do today. The other point here is that many of the secret combinations behind the Constitution were not known then. Much of this information has only lately been uncovered and revealed by men doing research into the basis of the actions taken by the federal government.)

I must point out here that the basic premise in Europe, to your liege lord, is that he owns the result of your labor, and you retain for your own use only what he permits. Would you care to compare that to our income tax laws? Mr. Colson continues:

Ratified on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment created and granted to those newly freed from their condition of slavery a political and civil status, and secured to them civil but not political rights. The Fifteenth Amendment provided those of African descent a political right, the right to vote. The first clause of the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States defines the term citizen as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This Amendment created a class of citizenship unknown in the Constitutional Contract of 1787.

When a black person tells you he is just a second class citizen, he is not joking. Note carefully the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment. The use of the words "born" and "reside" are keys to understanding how so many people are trapped into citizenship in the United States, thus losing all of their Constitutionally recognized Rights as State Citizens. (It is also important to note how very serious is the celebration of "birth days" "within" the United States.) It is also interesting, and important, to note that any attempt to participate in the "voting" allowed under the Fifteenth Amendment for those in the federal government is the voluntary use of a "franchise" granted by the feds, and is contractual in nature. Since the same "voting" procedures and franchise is now used for everyone "elected" in the "state of", "county of" and "city of" elections, not to mention "jury duty", it is easy, once you understand what has transpired, to recognize the up-side down aspect of America today.

In the first case after ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36, 21 L Ed. 394 (1872), the supreme Court affirmed the meaning of the term citizen pronounced by the Dred Scott Court. In discussing the fact that the Negro race was not and could not be citizens as contemplated by the original constitution, the Court held:

"To remove this difficulty primarily...the 1st clause of the 1st section (of the 14th Amendment) was framed.

"That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro race can admit of no doubt...

Note carefully what was just stated. When you admit to being a resident or to being born in the United States (or when you exercise any privilege or franchise or when you take any benefit offered by Congress, you become part of the negro race in the eyes of the law, and you can hold citizenship only in Washington, DC.

"It is quite clear, then, there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristic or circumstance in the individual...

"Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of a is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the Amendment... the latter must rest their security and protection where they have heretofore rested, for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the Amendment...

Are you a State Citizen or a citizen of the federal government under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment? That is exactly the question addressed by this supreme Court decision. If you are a federal citizen, you owe allegiance and taxes to the federal government, and to any nexus to which the said federal government contracts you into, with or without your knowledge or consent. The supreme Court decision continues:

"But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of Citizens of the state, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the state, and without that of the Federal Government. Was it the purpose of the 14th transfer the security and government. And...that Congress shall have...the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to states?

"We are convinced that no such results were intended by the congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislature of the state, which ratified them..." 21 L.Ed. at 407-08.

Stop and go back and read the sections above again and again until you understand what is being said. As sovereigns, all white people are Citizens of a state, and their protection lies with the Constitution and that they

"...are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the Amendment...the latter (i.e. sovereigns) must rest their security and protection where they have heretofore rested, for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the Amendment."

Then in the next paragraph, the supreme Court confirms the status of Sovereign Citizens who owe no allegiance to the federal government:

and without that of the Federal Government.

This specifically says that white people, as sovereigns, are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, unless you enter into a voluntary servitude contract. The real key to this lies in UCC 1-207. Remember, the provisions of UCC 1-207 would not be available to the citizens of the United States if the very nature of the UCC was not fraudulent in intent. Because the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, the hidden nature of the contracts which flow from the UCC and the related codes and statutes must, in some manner, permit protection from this fraudulent intent. The very existence of UCC 1-207 is prima facie evidence of fraud.

Voluntary Servitude

Are you aware that you are in a state of voluntary servitude? Did someone sit you down and explain the benefits and responsibilities of voluntary servitude? Did he give you a paper, explaining all of the conditions and terms of voluntary servitude so that you could make an informed consent? No? Then, as long as you are still in the system of the United States, UCC 1-207 comes into play. If you are a sovereign Citizen, i. e. a part of the white People of America and unless you gave your informed consent, you are not in a state of voluntary servitude. This is called common law, and it is very powerful. However, before you waltz into a court and start claiming your Rights, I suggest you do a lot more studying than the little bit I am offering to you here. Remember this well: Courts work under Codes, as in U. S. Code, California Code, Colorado Code, and all of the other numerous codes with which this nation now abounds.

Code: 3 A set of prearranged symbols, usually letters, used for purposes of secrecy or brevity in transmitting messages: the meaning of the symbols are given in a code book.

Go down to your local library and look at the Code (law) books there. By common usage, code has come to mean a system of law, but the original meaning is still as true today as it was when the Codes were first devised; they are something to be kept secret from the common people. This may have something to do with why you lost that last court case and still don't understand why you lost. You are not suppose to know why because it is a secret, a code. Of course, the real nature of those so-called courts, contract enforcement agencies under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, may have a little to do with the result of your loss as well!

Look, I know it's difficult to understand legal jargon. However difficult it may be to understand legal jargon, the basic Rights you wish to enjoy in society are covered by legal jargon. The simplicity has been taken out of our laws for a reason. If your Rights are disappearing, might there not be a legal jargon reason for it? It is our responsibility to find out what those reasons are and to do something about them. No one is going to step up and do it for us.

I need to make something else clear here. Nothing in the actions of the government today will have a bearing on the original nexus of white sovereignty in the past. But it is ludicrous to move forward without an understanding of the past and some of the foundations for today in the so-called law. Any man or woman today can use the decisions form the world court and other tools to limit their servitude. That is up to you. The government is not going to answer that since you are not white, this is not going to work. They are trapped in their own nonsense just as much s we are.

How do You Destroy Something Which is Iron-Clad?

When you have a document as iron-clad as our Declaration of Independence, as difficult to break down and subvert as the Constitution so obviously is (Do not doubt for a single moment that the Constitution does not create problems for those in power; it always has and always will, and this is why they do want to "update" it.), as simple and straight forward as the Constitution really is, would it not be safe to assume that an attack on that document, if such an attack could be identified, would have to occur over a long period of time? This is important to understand when you read about books such as The Natural Law of Government, written by Clinton Roosevelt in 1841, twenty-four years before the so-called Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted. This book details exactly what has occurred in America following the adoption of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the nature of the book is intimately detailed in Senate Document No. 43 which you read about in What, Exactly, is the Constitution?

Let us continue with Mr. Colson's writings:

Our organic law identifies and recognizes two distinct and separate types of "citizens of the United States." The supreme Court determined the 14th Amendment overcame the incapacity pronounced in the Dred Scott decision, by establishing a separate and distinct class of citizenship for those under that incapacity; secured to that class of citizen/subject the privileges and immunities of Citizens of a state; distinguished that class of citizen/subject from a Citizen/Sovereign of a state of the Union by the existence of "different characteristic or circumstance in the individual;" and declared that only the former (the citizen/subject of the United States) are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Let me repeat, what type of citizen are you? You are suppose to be a Sovereign Citizen, if you are white, of the state you are domiciled in which makes you a Sovereign Citizen of every state and outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government is a creation of and subordinate to the united States (More on this in a later Part). Until you fully grasp the significance of this difference in citizenship, you will never understand why the Constitution no longer seems to apply in America. You should also realize that Congress can not control nor rule anything that Congress has not created.

Therefore, Congress can never be the real superior of the states. This is why Congress and the hand-picked Presidents of the Elite are busy creating the federal United States, the ten federal regions, the federal zip codes, the abbreviations for states such as CO, CA, TX, MT, WY, and NY, which are symbols of federal jurisdiction (Author's note: This is because they are the symbols for the shadow of the real states. These symbols indicate the corporate entity shadows of the united States which is subordinate to the bankruptcy of the United States through the provisions of the UCC) and all of the rest of the creations of the federal mandate to rule, in the name of the Elite. Note this well: All of these provisions which seem to permit the federal government to rule supreme over the united States are illusions which have no basis in law, and they are being held in place only through the willful, deliberate and knowing commission of treason. And, of course, by the ignorance of We the People.


The Fifteenth Amendment

What Mr. Colson is saying is confirmed by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

All Sovereign of the united States already had the right to elect (electors). Second class citizens were privileged to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment. Remember, the Constitution does not grant Rights. Therefore, second-class citizens do not have the right to vote, but they do have a privilege which permits them to vote. When you accept a privilege from the government, expect there to be strings attached. In this case, a contract between everyone who accepts this privilege of voting and the federal United States of America in which you swear that you are a citizen of the federal United States and a resident of the state wherein you are voting, and thus subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.

By the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment, black women actually had the right to vote before white women. They just weren't told they had the right to vote, which prevented them from exercising that privilege granted to them by the Federal Government.

If the framers of the Fifteenth Amendment had dared to inform the black women of that day, the 1870s, that they could now vote, the people of America would have instantly understood that the basic premise of the Constitution had been changed. Instead of a document which acknowledged Rights and limited the actions of those in government, they now had a document which granted privileges. Once you understand this, it is easy to see the absolute need for a very gradual implementation of these types of changes. Gradual changes were needed in order to hide the change in America away from the Constitutional limitations upon the power of the federal government outside of Washington, DC, and these changes had to span generations because they had to be hidden changes. Why? Because they are illegal and fraudulent in nature, as they depend upon hidden contracts and no full disclosure of the nature or the intent of the said contracts. If these changes were not illegal, the methods used to implement these changes, contracts which are enforced through the so-called judicial system, would be openly talked about and debated.

These changes would be taught in our schools and the differences between the present system and the republican system under Law, as opposed to the Democracy so openly proclaimed today, would be discussed and compared so that the benefits could be identified. The very silence of the Elite and their lap dogs on this subject is proof of what I say, just as the silence of our schools and universities about the subjects I told you about in Parts VI and VII is proof of their complicity in the destruction of the Sovereignty of America. Of course, I also realize that what I just said is impossible because that would mean there is a conspiracy...


There was no sovereignty granted by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution to the newly created citizens of the United States. Therefore, the former slaves had no rights, and had to depend upon privileges granted by the Federal Government. As I explained before, the difference between our Declaration of Independence and all other forms of government in the world is the acknowledgment of God-granted Rights, upon which the government, established by the Constitution, can not infringe. Since the government cannot infringe upon the Rights granted by The True God to the Sovereigns of America, the status of the Sovereigns had to be changed so that they appeared to be something other than what they actually were before the law. This is where the hidden contracts came into play, and these hidden contracts leave everyone in America, who were once Sovereigns, dependent upon the government for all of the privileges that Americans use to enjoy as a Right.

All rights, which are granted by the government and not God-given, may be withdrawn at the whim of the government. These changes to the basic Organic Law of our nation changed the entire concept of the Constitution to a document, which grants rights (privileges) instead of acknowledging them. Of course, by beginning to grant privileges to people, the changes in the Constitution greatly increased the power of those in the government as well. This is exactly how the Constitution in a Communist nation works. Once you grasp the implications of this, and once you understand the true source of Socialism, Communism, Zionism, Democracy, and Liberalism (The international bankers, the money kings, who invented, financed and backed all of these movements from the time they first appeared), what is happening in America becomes understandable. Now, when you hear a "newscast" about "emerging Democracies" around the world, look at this information in it’s true context.

?Let us look one more time at what the Supreme Court said about the Fourteenth Amendment:

?"The amendment (fourteenth) reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution," United States v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases, 785, 794.

...Or Second Class Citizenship?

Accepting privileges from the government instead of exercising your God-given Rights/Obligations is, by definition, second class citizenship. This is also why the minorities in America must continue to fight for every privilege they wish to enjoy. It is easy to see how the legal construction of these two amendments has lead to virtual class warfare and to so much hatred in our nation. Is this the only INTENDED result of these two amendments? Was their purpose to guarantee minorities would have to fight for every right they wished to enjoy? Of course not!

A Privilege from the Government Means...

If you are a white person, every time you enter unknowingly or knowingly into a voluntary servitude contract such as social security, driver's license (which is a restriction upon a citizen's privilege to travel), the voluntary filing of a 1040 tax return or use of Federal Reserve Notes (there are many other ways as well) you, if you are a white person, a Sovereign Citizen, become a second class citizen with the same status as a person of color before the law, because you have accepted a privilege from the government. We should not be surprised at this result. Let's listen to Mr. Colson again:

The first rule of government is protection for allegiance. The term allegiance is taken from the Latin "a ligando" or litgeance which is what a liege man owed to his liege lord in English feudal law. From ligeance it became allegiance or as we call it today jurisdiction.

You should look up allegiance and jurisdiction in Black's Law Dictionary. Allegiance is from you to the government; jurisdiction is from the government or the court to you. Please note the reference to English Feudal law in the paragraph above. It's important to know for a full understanding of this Report. Mr. Colson continues:

The 14th Amendment enumerates two qualifications for citizenship of the United States: first, being born or naturalized in the United States, and second, being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Both conditions must be met in order to be a 14th Amendment citizen. The individual must not only be born or naturalized in the United States, but also must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, (1884) it was held that the meaning of those words was not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

To be "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government. This was the case of the black man in 1868, because he received his citizenship and protection directly from the 14th Amendment he owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States for he was completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the government of the state of his birth. The white State Citizens are not possessed of the rights and duties incident to the civil and political status created and granted by the 14th Amendment and as a matter of the organic law are not the "persons" identified in the Amendment.

"Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized. either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired." Id. at 102.

For purposes of the Federal 1040 type of income tax imposed by 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), Treasury Regulation 1.1-1(c) defines "citizen" as "Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen." Is this nothing other than a re-statement of the 1st clause of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment, the only difference being singular rather than plural? It is beyond doubt that the definition of "citizen" as intended and used in the IRC is the same and is taken directly from the 14th Amendment.

To be subject to the jurisdiction of Congress and subject to the rules of Congress (IRS, EPA, agreements with the UN, control of public lands and of your property within the states, etc.) you must voluntarily become a citizen of the United States.

There are two types of political citizenship in the United States which are lawfully distinct and separate from each other, Slaughter-House Cases, supra. Lawfully there are two kinds of "citizens of the United States." The main difference being the source of citizenship. The first type of citizenship is premised on State citizenship as determined by birth (blood) and concerns only "We the People" and their posterity, the Sovereign People, the body politic who ordained and established the Constitutional Contract of 1787. These individuals are Citizen/Sovereigns who are neither entitled to the protection of the Federal Constitution nor subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is well known that a Citizen of one state is a Citizen of every state in the Union. Butler v. Farnsworth, Fed. Cas. No. 2, 240 (1821). Thus, a State Citizen by virtue of his state citizenship is ipso facto a Citizen of the United States; the 14th Amendment is not the basis nor the source of this citizenship.

The second type of citizenship is also determined by blood; however, it is directly or immediately from and created and granted by the 14th Amendment for those under the incapacity of blood who are entitled to the protection of the Federal Constitution and who are, because they receive that protection, a citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and hence they are citizen-subjects and a resident receiving that protection in the state in which they live.

Most people in this country mistakenly presume that they are a citizen for each and every purpose. With the knowledge and reality of who is a citizen for Federal income tax purposes, it is easy to see how most if not all state citizens mistakenly presume they are such a citizen. For the same reason that the white State Citizens are not 14th Amendment citizens, likewise they are not "citizens of the United States" identified in regulation 1.1-1(c) for purposes of the IRC.

Once you thoroughly understand about that which Mr. Colson is writing, it is easy to see the bald-faced lying our so-called civil rights leaders are doing now and were doing in 1865. The Civil Rights Movement does not accomplish anything except greatly extend the power of the Federal Government. This is exactly what the civil rights movement was intended to do. In politics, as in law, it is easy to understand and to believe that whatever is the ultimate result of a law or any other action taken is also the originally intended object of that law or action. Any rights, which minorities obtain from the Federal Government, are not rights at all as they may be withdrawn at any time because there is no sovereignty involved. All of these so-called rights granted by the government are actually privileges. This brings us down to the real crux of the matter: Rights can not be taxed. Privileges can be taxed, as in an eighty percent accumulative tax burden upon the citizens of the United States. It becomes very obvious, after you make a study of this subject, that this and the destruction of the sovereignty of the white people of America, a Sovereignty gained through the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, was the intended result of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. Colson continues:

With the Court's explanation that the substantive law underlying the 13th and 14th Amendments is feudal in nature, allegiance is synonymous with jurisdiction; citizen and subject are synonymous and denote political status; and domicile is synonymous with resident which denotes civil status. Today the term resident has replaced copyholder, villien or serf. Not withstanding the name change from serf to resident this term as well as the term citizen have the same meaning in the 14th Amendment as they had in the English feudal law relative to the condition of servitude.


A wise man once observed that there are none so enslaved as those who believe they are free but are not. Today, this is the precise condition of the American People. The 13th and 14th Amendments in combination together have interjected into our organic law "the old slavery of villienage" in the same nature as the English Feudal law; which today denotes a secret and widely unknown jurisdiction that is used to enslave, control and regulate "citizen (subjects) and residents of the United States" for all purposes not excluding Federal income taxation. This jurisdiction is also used to enslave the unsuspecting Sovereign people. Another name, more commonly known, for this jurisdiction is the law merchant, a commercial law based entirely on contract. The IRC says that if you are not a citizen or resident of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, you are a nonresident alien individual. Due to their political and civil status a Citizen of the several States is outside of and is not subject to the constitutional and legislative (political) jurisdiction of the United States Congress under the 13th and 14th Amendments, a Feudal substantive system of law. Consequently, all State Citizens, the Posterity of "We the People," are nonresident alien individuals to the political and civil status of the 14th Amendment and the majority of them do not have reportable or taxable income.

There is quite a bit more that Mr. Colson has written, but for our purposes here, the parts we've used are to show you how, by not understanding your status, you are unknowingly removed from the protection of the limitations established in the Constitution. And if you are not above the protection of the Constitution, Congress can and will take your guns away, because you do not have any Second Amendment protections to prevent them from so doing. Not to mention the simple fact that you do not own the guns in question, because you never paid for them, so there can not be any legal debate about ownership in the legal battles still to come concerning private possession of guns in America. I am also sure that Congress and the "legal" profession will never actually put the debate in terms where the average citizen will be able to understand what is being discussed, and the debate about ownership will sound like something else entirely. However, that will not change the ultimate result of this debate, which will be the disarming, or at least the attempted disarming, of the law-abiding citizens of the nation.

Did the men who framed the Fourteenth Amendment actually understand the fraudulent intent of the Amendment? You bet they did and, as always, the best proof is by their own actions (and by the fact that it has never been repealed; from this we can understand that it accomplished exactly what was intended). The Fourteenth Amendment was supposedly declared as ratified on July 9, 1868. Just eighteen days later, on July 27, 1868, Congress passed a statute which is of great interest to everyone who has been fraudulently deprived of their rights by being brought under the Fourteenth Amendment:

15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (Section 1), July 27, 1868.

Chapter CCXLIX. – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

and whereas in recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship;

and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof;

and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace, that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:

Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled:

That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision, of any officer of this government, which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.


A friend of mine, Brother Jim Lorenz, wrote a short essay on this statute which is quite lucid:

"On the surface, this seems to guarantee that foreigners who live within the borders of America, cannot be forced, to claim citizenship. Moreover, what this also is saying is that anyone who wishes, to expatriate the U.S., or to renounce their "U.S. citizenship", may do so, by inherent "Right", and no one can deny him this Right.

"And, the Conspirators, the "rump" Congress, as it was "assembled", in 1868, knew that the letter of the "Law" having been satisfied by this exemption from, compelled performance, and having a status of U.S. citizenship, thrust upon us, they could then hide the exemption from the general view, and begin promoting to those Sovereigns, who remained, in those Union States, the benefits of voluntary US citizenship.

"In news media (and later in public schools) they began setting up all Citizens, by manipulation to obey the millions of codes, statutes and laws, exaction fines for breaking these laws, imposing taxes or license fees, seizure of private property or jail.

"Thus, free Sovereigns are not subject to the federal government, by virtue of their not claiming, "U.S. citizenship"! Those of us who have renounced our "U.S. citizenship" and declared our Lawful "status" as Sovereigns under positive Law, using the Constitution and the 15 Statutes at Large 249 "explanation" as legal foundation for this "Declaration of Status", are the only "Citizens" Lawfully living in the united States of America. The others, those "U.S. citizens", are merely "residing" as foreigners from an alien state within our sovereign Union States, Republics and Commonwealths.

"Thus, "United States" is a "corporate fiction", to Sovereign State Citizens. As far as the united States of America is concerned, except for Citizens of the united States, who have expatriated, there's no one at home. Everyone else is a foreign alien resident living in a Free Republic! (These ia a part of this which is not correct; more on this later. - David)


Every time that fraud is committed by the federal government, a way out has to be established in the statutes because of the Thirteenth Amendment. This is why the Constitution is so hated by those who wish to rule America with an iron fist. Even while they seek to pervert and pollute the basic governing laws of our nation, they must leave an escape hatch for those astute enough to find it. Of course, they hide these Get Out of Jail Free clauses in the statutes very well.

Once you understand this, the striking similarity of the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (Section 1) of July 27, 1868, and the provisions of UCC 1-207 become very evident. Quite simply, by hiding the change in the status of citizens, the Constitution as a limitation on the powers of government is virtually rendered as meaningless to the majority of the people of America. When you look around and you cannot understand how everything got turned upside down, this attack under the Constitutional government of America to establish a government excersing powers like all the others of the earth answers most of the many questions we have all had about conditions in America.

How do we actually know that the Constitution has been rendered meaningless to the majority of the people of America?

The Yellow Fringed Flag

This is very easy to demonstrate. Go down to your local court house and look in the court room. There will be a so-called American flag there with a yellow fringe around it. This flag with the yellow fringe, which is a battle flag, denotes an Executive and administrative or, as Mr. Colson states above, "COMMERCIAL LAW BASED ENTIRELY ON CONTRACTS," LAW COURT WHERE, SPECIFICALLY, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY. This occurs because we are no longer above the limitations of the Constitution.

If the citizens of America were still above the limitations provided by the Constitution, these types of courts would not be permitted in America. Are we to wonder, once again, that this has come about by chance? If this had occurred by chance, the differences would be openly revealed to the citizens of this nation, so the pros and cons could be discussed. The issue would not have been hidden as it is now.

I see yellow fringed so-called American flags displayed in churches, meeting halls, schools and homes by citizens, who do not realize what it is they display. People buy a yellow fringed flag because it's pretty. Ninety-nine percent of them do not even understand the difference: the yellow fringed flag is not an American flag. The stars and stripes, the blue back ground and the thirteen white stars do not of themselves constitute an American flag. They are simply a symbol for what America once represented. An American flag stands for a concept unknown anywhere else in the world: the sovereignty of a people and the freedom that sovereignty represents.

But wait, first you have to discover the real American flag:

Resolved That the Flag of the united states be thirteen stripes alternate red and white, that the Union be thirteen stars white in a blue field representing a new constellation (June 14, 1777, by the Continental Congress, eleven months after the "Declaration of Independence" from King George III of England), which the grammatical construction is used to express futurity, rearrangement, or obligation, and was intended by the Continental Congress of the republic to be permanent. The stars represent the thirteen tribes of Israyl, not states or States, which went in accordance to The One True God’s Law. The last three tribes being Manesheh, Benyamin (Americans), and Ephriam (England), from which Ephriam did not get the second born blessing from Israyl, even though Ephriam was the second born son.

Do you understand? The flag of the united States is thirteen stars, no more, and the flag of fifty stars denotes ONLY the jurisdiction of Washington, DC. The flag for the United States MUST be different because that is a separate jurisdiction, under the Crown!









That concept of freedom is what the American flag stands for and is, by definition, what an American flag IS. Also, by definition, a yellow fringed battle flag of the UNITED STATES will never have that meaning and, therefore, can never be considered an American flag. It is not an accident that the only other place that the yellow fringed flag legitimately flies is in federal buildings and federal offices like the B.A.T.F. and the IRS which are under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch of the federal government. The President is the supreme commander of the armed forces, and the yellow-fringed flag is a symbol which specifically shows that the Executive branch of government is in control, under military jurisdiction which is the only jurisdiction allowed to the President, wherever it flies. This includes in the so-called courtrooms of America.

The Yellow Fringed Flag denotes a separate jurisdiction being established by the BAR Association and Congress under the President of the UNITED STATES acting as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the UNITED STATES. Evidence of this can be found in Title 4, USC, Chap. 1, Secs. 1, 2, & 3; U.S. Attorney General Opinions (34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483 @ 485); U.S. Army Reg., AR 840-10, October 1, 1979; Adjutant Genl. Papers (1925), March 28, 1924. If you, as an American, can see no evidence of invasion or rebellion, if you are hearing no newscasts of invasion or rebellion, and if you are observing no tanks in the streets then you can find no justifiable reason for a military jurisdiction except to serve the interests of the those in power. Such actions by those in power, the establishment of a court system outside the judicial mandate of the Constitution of the United States of America, can be termed constructive treason.

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

This question about the yellow fringed flag actually goes much deeper and is of a much more serious nature than as a simple symbol. Read the following information very carefully. It's important.

Courts of equity can no more disregard constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law. Brandt v. Godfrey, 172 Misc 768, 16 NYS 2d 51, affd 260 App Div 851, 23 NYS 2d 464.

What did that say? It says that courts of equity are not courts of law and that the two are separate entities. All courts in use by the general public (the common man, if you will) in America are courts of equity. This means that there are no longer any courts of law in use in America! That is what the case law I showed you just above here says.

Respect for the Law?

Everywhere I hear the comment that there is no longer any respect for the law. How can there be respect for the law when there are no longer any courts where the law can be enforced? If you want to understand where this is leading America, just go down to your local equity court room where the yellow fringed flag flies and carefully observe what is going on. Ninety to ninety-five percent and perhaps as high as ninety-nine percent of the people being processed through that equity court are from the bottom twenty-five percent of our economy. These are the individuals who are least equipped to protect themselves, and they are one of the reasons that the Law was written. When you are asked: "Doesn't the individual count anymore?" The answer is no, he doesn't. Only equity counts, or, in other words, only contracts have standing and can be judged in a so-called Admiralty/Military court.

This means that individuals have no standing before these types of courts, and this is why a judge hates to see someone representing himself. It is only through a contract between an individual and a lawyer, who is an officer of the court, where the individual acknowledges that he is a corporate person and not mentally competent to represent himself, that the judge and the court are safe from counter suits for violating his rights. On the other hand, only very seldom will a rich, influential person be punished in an equity court. Does that sound like reality to you? Do you suppose that this, too, has occurred by accident? Does this sound like the re-institution of royalty in America? It should sound like that, because it is exactly what has happened.

I hate to repeat myself, and I would not if this were not so vitally important. If the middle class is disappearing, where do you suppose those people who previously were part of the middle class are going? Are they sinking into the class, which cannot defend itself in equity courts? Probably. What happens when we end up with a very thin slice of very rich at the top who never lose in a court of equity, and the rest of the mass of the people are subject to those same equity courts? We will have the same situation we fought a revolutionary war to escape, and the people will have lost the protection of the Rule of Law in America, the law which was written to control those same super-rich Elitist who abuse the people and claim it is their right to do so. This is why the Elite use these sayings: "might makes right" and "the end justifies the means." There can be no other result where equity rules, and law is ignored. The ultimate result of courts of equity is to keep the people in fear and docile. That description fits most of the people I know today.

People are brought into courts of equity, without even knowing they are not in a court of law. Nor is it ever explained to those same people why they are subject to a court of equity: adhesion contracts. The very nature of the deliberate ignorance of the people being shuffled through the equity court's doors proves fraud on the part of everyone, who works in this system. Ignorance of the fraud they commit by the people working in the system is no protection from the Law. This fraud flows from that one word in the Thirteenth Amendment and is the only reason that the provision of UCC 1-207 exists. The very existence of UCC 1-207 and the necessity of using the protections provided by UCC 1-207 are additional proofs of fraud.

There is always a reason for circumstances to exist! Since there is no equal justice in America, all you have to do is identify the reason why not. We have done so. At this point, it should be easy to see that it was not the poor of America, who worked to change our system of justice. As the burden of taxation becomes heavier and as wages continue to decline, the burdens imposed by adhesion contracts and by an unwillingness of citizens to see their families go hungry will force an ever-increasing number of people through the doors of equity courts. Why are more and more people growing and selling dope? It is the only way they can make a decent living! Do not be surprised at an intended result when it comes to pass.

It is interesting to study the time of the Civil War and find how Congress, working against President Lincoln and against the best interest of our nation and in the interest of the International Bankers, destroyed the Constitutional United States Notes, which Lincoln was trying to use to win the Civil War. This left the Federal Government with no option but to borrow money from the International Bankers (which was what was desired in the first place) with which to fight the Civil War. This, in turn, forced the American Citizens to pay interest on Civil War debts instead of using debt-free money as our Constitution specified. Since this has put billions of dollars into the pockets of the international bankers in the years since the Civil War, and since the "follow the money" rule ALWAYS works, it is not difficult to identify who was really behind the Civil War to begin with.

These Congressmen, who worked to destroy the United States Notes, are the same men who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment. You will also note above where Mr. Colson said: "...the old slavery of villienage in the same nature as the English Feudal Law" (Author's note: Yes, this means English, as in the Bank of England or in other words, the Rothchilds and the International Bankers, i.e., "the City" of London.

The method used to free the slaves is comparable to the fraudulent nature of the Federal Reserve. I believe you can identify all of this as a definable plan to destroy the Declaration of Independence because the voluntary servitude nature of the Thirteenth Amendment was intended to be a direct, long term attack on the Sovereign people.

We're all in the same boat, folks, and what affects me or you affects all of us, white or black, red or yellow or brown. It is undeniable in my mind that the men who wrote and passed the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were under the same control as the men who wrote and adopted the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution. When you look at how these separate events, in conjunction with the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, work together in overthrowing the basic premise of freedom in America, and at the time in between their enactment, conspiracy is the only answer.

The European System, of Royalty and Privilege...

I firmly believe that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution were written in the manner in which they were in order for the European System to be installed in America. That is, they permit the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of the royalty and the super rich (Author's note: Royalty simply means those with special privileges). Remember this well when you see well known people advocating parts of the European System as being a good idea for America. Our problems actually stem from our failure to stand up for our acknowledged God-given Rights and our failure to rein in the federal government's overstepping of the limits set for it in the Constitution.

God-given Rights! Not from the government and not from man: our Rights come from God and our Organic Law acknowledges that fact! The Constitution grants no rights: it simply acknowledges the existence of those Rights in the Bill of Rights. You MUST understand this difference in order to fully understand what is happening in America. When a government ignores the very existence of God-given Rights, they are making a clear statement of ownership of the citizens of that nation. This has been the normal situation throughout the history of the world in almost all of the nations which have ever existed, and it is this system which permits exploitation of the common people by the so-called Elite.

Let me make this very clear. When the only source of privilege (rights) available to the citizens is through the government, then the government obviously owns all of the so-called rights which the citizens may or may not be allowed to enjoy. In other words, the government owns all of the property of the citizens of that nation, and the government may do with their property whatever they wish to do (Author's note: Remember, your Rights ARE your most precious property, and you are conceived with these Rights intact, and they must, in America, be voluntarily surrendered by you, if you are a white person). The most basic of all of your property Rights is the Right to exist! And under this type of system, eventually, that right is always at the whim of government.

This actually gives people the status of cattle, and those in charge of the government, the Elite, or, if you prefer, the money kings, may then breed the cattle (extensive, soon to be forced, birth control, and abortion, also soon to be forced at the whim of a bureaucrat in the name of population control), brand the cattle (social security number), milk (tax) the cattle, and slaughter the cattle as they see fit. The slaughter of the cattle occurs when the cattle are no longer fit to produce more than they consume. You can observe this argument going on now in this nation of ours under the guise of "the right of the elderly to terminate their suffering."

Since we are on the subject of God-given Rights and all of the connotations of religion which this brings forth, let me mention a small item which, quite frankly, irritates me to no end. Almost everyone of the Christians with which I am acquainted, carefully, at some point in our conversations, explains to me that the reason they submit to the edicts of Washington, DC, is because the Bible instructs them to obey the law of the land. Hogwash and balderdash! Using that line of reasoning leads one to the inescapable conclusion that we should apologize to merry old England for our temerity in demanding the freedoms which God endowed us with and that we should willingly return to the British Empire, as is being planned for us.

But the real reason this statement irritates me so badly is the simple reason: the Declaration of Independence IS the law of the land! The conclusion to be reached here is that any Christian who claims to believe that the Bible instructs him to obey the law of the land has a moral, binding and unavoidable obligation to see to it that Constitutional limitations are restored to America, and to his children and grandchildren!

When you finally begin to realize the subversion that has been going on to our Declaration of Independence and courts and what the end result of that subversion is, it is easy to identify our true enemy. It is now, as it was in 1776 and always has been: England. More specifically, it is the British Empire which is dominated, controlled and owned by the Rothschilds through the Bank of England and the City of London. It is England which, through the duplicity of our so-called elected officials (actually agents of the banking community, i.e., the FED) tricked us into two World Wars and which started and still dominates the drug trade. Doubt it NOT!

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Wiston Churchill

The essence of being a King is the privilege to make law, and this is accomplished by choosing men who can be put in power to support the King and who are willing to do what ever is necessary to keep the King, and thus themselves, in power. Look around America and tell me what you see... A very interesting study is the history of the Great Depression in America. In that history, you will find that the man above , Winston Churchill, was on the walk way around the upper level of the New York Stock Exchange when the market collapsed in 1929. Of course, this was only a coincidence, I am sure.

However, if his presence at that location at the exact necessary point in time was not a coincidence (no one who studies history believes in coincidences), then from this one piece of evidence, you can understand how exactly the money and stock markets are controlled. And unless you are part of the inner circle of the elite, you can begin to understnand how dangerous it is to play there game, without access to their information. Judge your own actions accordingly.


From: "Kenneth Weiland" <> Subject: Basic World Tax Code

I stumbled across a website containing the Basic Work Tax Code and Commentary. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader which is available through a free download. The site is:

According to the Forward, this 500-plus Tax Code published in 1996 by Harvard University International Tax Program, was designed to HELP those unfortunate 3rd, 4th, and 5th world countries find their economic bearings by adopting OUR fair, efficient and modern tax system. They even use a "mythical" country named Progresa - kinda gives you that homey feeling.

But their warm and fuzzy demeanor turns to doo-doo when you turn to Chapter A - Introduction, and go to page 50. It reads:

E. Finally, a sea change in the attitude of the public must be brought about. They may never get to love their tax collector, but they will pay their taxes because they think that on the whole the system is fair, that other people are paying, and that they damn well better.

Who said Harvard didn't have a sense of humor?


jay rutledge wrote: From: "jay rutledge" <>

In plain English are you saying that there are district courts of the United States sitting in judicial districts of the United States in the same situs with the same personnel as United States District Courts in United States judicial districts ?

Other than construction of Code and statute, is there any confirmation of this such as a decision issued in the name of a district court of the United States ?

MEADOR RESPONSE: That's precisely what I'm saying. Congress established Article III district courts of the United States for each of the judicial districts in the several States party to the Constitution. However, in 1948, there was what amounted to a judicial coup de grace effected against the Constitution when they shifted rules of procedure & evidence from "District Courts of the United States" to "United States District Courts", then proceeded to man United States District Courts in the several States. In other words, judges "built" what amount to private courts with absolutely no constitutional or statutory authority to do so.

In each Federal judicial district, an Article III "district court of the United States" exists by virtue of Congress having legislated them into existence. The legislation has never been repealed, so they exist. However, there are no Article III judges to convene them.

Why is that? Well, here is the key to your riddle: In the 1960's, each of the several States adopted the voter registration act. This is among the "adopted" acts originating with the Council of State Governments. The Act is predicated on the notion that each of the several States is a Federal State, i.e., an "instrumentality of the United States". This perverted all elected and appointed offices as it fraudulently displaced State "electoral" systems -- i.e., only the "citizen of the [geographical] United States" may register to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to the geographical citizenship.

The voter registration act "poisoned the root of the tree." Subsequently, the tree and all fruit of the tree are poisoned. Beginning with the first election under the voter registration act, all State and Federal elected officials were fraudulently elected. No act by any of these officials could be "lawful" as none were "lawfully" elected. Consequently, no appointment can or could be legitimate, i.e., no Article III judges and no corresponding State and local judges. They cannot legitimately convene lawful courts because they don't lawfully hold constitutionally authentic offices. The effect is to default all State and Federal legislation, constitutional amendments, etc., and judicial decisions, since the voter registration act was implemented. In other words, our friend Governor Madsen of Colorado has the right idea -- he was elected by half a dozen or so Colorado electors.

However, I'm of the opinion that we can be somewhat more pragmatic in approach. I've avoided discussing current initiatives and potential remedies in these forums as I prefer some kind of result before airing it. For conversational purposes, I'll share what I have pending out of the Eastern District of Kentucky so maybe rationale can be advanced elsewhere.

In about April 1998 while I was still at FMC-Lexington, at Lexington, Kentucky, I constructed an application for writ of habeas corpus to file in the "district court of the United States" for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Lexington Division. Because it was a pretty lengthy document, I was sending it home in pieces, and because anyone can file a writ of habeas corpus for anyone else, I simply had Gail file it via mail. The clerk deposited the money order in the account of the "United States District Court"; Gail wrote a letter of complaint about putting money in the wrong account and filing the case in the wrong court.

Now we'll back up: I figured the "private court" out in late fall 1997. To that point, I was calling them legislative or territorial courts -- they aren't either. In December, several of us "attacked" the office of clerk for disclosure of appointment authority (28 U.S.C. 751), and the clerk at Lexington in particular wouldn't even admit the statutory authority for appointment. He sent the query to the general counsel for the Administrative Office of United States Courts. He didn't answer. In the meantime, another clerk from another Federal district confirmed to another prisoner that 28 U.S.C. 751 is the authority. Authority for appointing clerks is to "district courts", not United States District Courts, as such. Definitions wrap back around to sections 451 & 610, so we knew what the law specifies.

When I wrote a query to the Director of the Administrative Office, he elected not to answer. But things were heating up, and at about the time Gail filed my habeas, I received a carefully worded letter from the general counsel of the Administrative Office that tacitly confirmed my conclusion -- United States District Courts in the several States are private courts. Of course, you have to know every definition relating to "court" in Title 28 to understand what the letter says, so I had to break everything he said down to "interpret" what he said.

The trial judge the habeas was assigned to elected to dismiss the application for habeas corpus predicated on Gail's letter -- she wanted the money deposited in the right account, and the case assigned to the right court. The good judge "interpreted" these demands as a unilateral motion to dismiss. So he did.

Armed with the letter from the Administrative Office general counsel, I put in a motion for judicial disclosure and wrote to the chief judge of the district, in his administrative capacity, for disclosure of six particulars relating to the United States District Court. In both formats, the judges "confessed" (acquiesced) to the six supported averments which where either explicitly or implicitly supported not just by my research, but by the general counsel letter. They didn't confess to the crucifixion, but everything short of that.

Most particularly, they confessed to usurpation of power of an Article III district court of the United States, and misappropriation of public funds appropriated for the Article III district court of the United States. Congress appropriates funds exclusively for courts of the United States defined at 28 U.S.C. 610; the courts are paid through the Director of the Administrative Office of United States Courts. United States District Courts situated in the several States are not district courts of the United States, and they are not territorial courts of the United States.

While all this was going on, nineteen prisoners at Lexington, including me, were in the process of securing administrative acquiescence via the Warden, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. We attempted to file an original class action habeas through the Supreme Court, but as someone else found out recently, the clerk stands guard at the gate -- shipped it back without filing it, alleging we had to comply with rules, etc.

With all this in the mill, I was making some changes to my personal habeas, which Gail was this time setting and sending back in, and in early July, I sent it to the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit with a cover letter requesting that he file it in the Article III district court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and assign a circuit judge or the circuit justice to convene the Article III district court. (in the event of necessity, judges of superior courts can move down) I included an affidavit of bias and prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 144 against all judicial officers assigned to the Eastern District of Kentucky -- all preside in the private court, therefore have financial and potentially personal liability in civil and criminal forums for doing so.

The circuit judge evidently attempted to dodge the bullet as the circuit clerk sent the application for habeas corpus back to the clerk in the "Eastern District of Kentucky" (did not identify the court) with a cover letter telling him, "Evidently Mr. Meador wants this filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky."

Gail received a receipt for the second money order being deposited in the account of the "United States District Court" for the Eastern District of Kentucky, but we've never received file stamped copies of any of the pleadings, we've never heard from either clerk, no judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky has attempted to tamper with the case, and the chief judge for the Sixth Circuit is quiet as a church mouse.

In the administrative process, I employed a strategy that seemed to work reasonably well.

We've heard from people throughout the prison system that whenever anyone begins getting tough with wardens and other prison administrators that they wind up in the hole, get shipped here and there (diesel therapy -- mail never catches up), etc., so I did what I could to avert that possibility. Rather than serving the warden directly, we served three staff members, each receiving two copies of our administrative complaints, with instructions that they respectively serve the three primary principals. All was quiet to the point the 20-day response period was up, then a nice lady in security wanted to visit with me. I thought, "Oh, hell..." But we had things spread out enough both in the prison population and in prison staff that it would have been pretty difficult to make isolated accusations. I told the nice lady I didn't want to hide a thing -- I would share copies of all further initiatives with security so nobody had to worry about something covert.

That hatched another idea: We needed documents pertaining to each prisoner participating in the class, so I constructed the proper requests, and I "made security" our witness -- security is responsible for investigating staff and the administration as well as prisoners. In the cover letter to the security officer, I said I would submit complaints for her consideration before attempting to file them anywhere, and if she found no flaw in law or fact, she would be called as a witness at an ensuing probable cause hearing if there was reason to pursue criminal prosecution.

Needless to say, nothing further was heard from security. The records officer refused to give me records I requested, so I intended to .... Never in my wildest dreams did I expect two months of halfway house with everything that was in the mill. But on August 2, just as things were getting interesting, I crawled in a cab, rode to the bus station, then Gail and I rode the bus from Lexington to Tulsa. Things from that part of the world have been quiet since.

These actions are all ripe, ready to be moved ahead, but since being released Oct. 2, I've had two encumbrances: First, we simply don't have finances to do what needs to be done, and second, I've been busier than a cranberry merchant trying to distill research and tend to problems that accumulated in my 16-month absence.

Probably I should have put this into the discussion mix before as some of it might help others being assailed in Federal courts: Given information we've documented concerning the courts, anyone should be able to file an affidavit of bias and prejudice against all judicial officers who preside in any given United States District Court within the several States. Get names of judges and U.S. magistrates from forward materials in local civil rules (the clerk of the court will give you copies of local civil and criminal rules for United States District Courts), and from local telephone books. If they are listed as officers of a United States District Court in a court publication and public notice information such as telephone books, the conclusion that they preside in the United States District Court is prima facie true. The case heading should be as the original complaint or whatever issues, then the "Affidavit of Bias and Prejudice" should name each judge and magistrate in the exhibits that will naturally be attached to the pleading. In order to default the affidavit of bias and prejudice, someone is going to have to prove that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky or wherever is in fact an Article III court of the United States. If some particular judge has convened the court, and fails to disprove averments in the affidavit of bias and prejudice, an individual judicial complaint should be filed with the circuit under 28 U.S.C. 372(c).

Now, where are we going here? Do you want to get to the Supreme Court? Well, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the chief judge of the circuit court, and the chief judge of the district court have administrative as well as judicial capacities. You might want to file an affidavit of complaint against a clerk who files your case in the wrong court, an affidavit of criminal complaint for misappropriation of private and public funds, etc., and an affidavit of complaint against any judicial officer who usurps authority of the court you file in by imposing authority of a private United States District Court.

Since about September, I've been trying to secure regulations for court officers from the Director of the Administrative Office of United States Courts, but his staff has run around Robin Hood's barn avoiding the mandate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is responsible in his administrative capacity for appointing and removing the Director. If I don't get the requested regulations in reasonably short order, the Chief Justice is going to get an affidavit of complaint pertaining to malfeasance of office, etc. And if the Chief Justice doesn't carry out administrative responsibility Congress has charged him with...

Get the picture?

This is the reason I've continued to hammer on the message, "We have to know the law..."

If I present a prison security officer with a complaint about probable administrative crime, what effect does that have? If the officer ignores the undisputed evidence, is there a potential for being prosecuted for misprision of felony, accessory after the fact, etc.? I became invisible -- she and her peers couldn't see me and cracks in the floor at the same time.

My approach to government people is somewhat different from many others. I try to strike an agreement: "I want to comply with the law," I tell them. "However, I have to know what the law is before I know for certain that I can comply with it. Would you agree with that?"

Most of them do. "Well, if we're in agreement on that, let's agree that once we determine what the law is, we will both comply with it. Would you agree with that?"

Each of us should probably consider that position: Would anyone disagree with the notion that to have a civilized society, we need law and order? And would anyone disagree with the notion that in order for everyone to comply with the law, we need to know what the law is?

The First Amendment secures the right to "petition" for redress of grievance. It doesn't specify how the petition is to issue. It might be in political forum, or it might be in administrative and judicial forums. If we know the law, and remedies the law prescribes, we are better equipped for the latter two forums. Finding the means the law prescribes is as important as knowing benefits and obligations the law provides.

Another aspect to the pragmatic as opposed to the purist approach is to address the immediate problem, and employ immediate remedies (remedial), in order to secure a viable position. In other words, it wouldn't be practical to chase everyone out of office at all levels of government all at once. I promise you, I don't know what all those people do in the county courthouse, in city hall, in the State capitol ... and government, for all its ills, has to continue to operate. It still serves some legitimate purposes, and there are some loyal people in government service.

Is this an unreasonable view? Well, when the Jews took the promised land, they took what could be secured and settled, then went forward, they didn't try to take it all at once. God directed them to take the promised heritage in an orderly manner that would preserve what they were taking. The method was intended to preserve the productive capacity of the inheritance. God bless -- Dan


I hope this ending to Part XIII has given you a view of how deeply entrenched the corruption in the United States is, and an understanding of what anyone who wishes to "correct" the problem should be doing. It has nothing to do with "voting", but instead with research and work with public officials. You can not change what you support, with taxes or by participation. Yes, we must co-exist with the beast on this earth; that does not mean that we feed him!

If you are ready, please E-mail <> and request Part XIV. All my best, David