RESIDENCE CORRECTIVE NOTICE GOV AS TRUSTEE NOT BENEFICIARY

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1282155418

INDEX 01 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE 02 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE 03a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS 03b SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION 04a REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY 04b RELEASE OF POWER OF PROPERTY 05 POWERS OF ATTORNEY COVER LETTER I COVER LETTER II EXHIBIT A COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT A2 COPY OF BACK OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT B PHOTO COPY OF SS CARD, DRIVER LICENSE EXHIBIT C COPY OF DD 214 (if discharged from military) EXHIBIT D COPY OF HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA (or where it can be validated) EXHIBIT E TRUST RECEIPTS, 89 CJS EXHIBIT F DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER EXHIBIT G PARSON EXHIBIT H TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT I LETTER ROGATORY EXHIBIT J DIPLOMATIC PROTEST EXHIBIT K INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES EXHIBIT L DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF VALUE EXHIBIT M INLAND EMPIRE UNDER MOYTOY EXHIBIT N FIRST CORPORATE DIPLOMATIC PROTEST EXHIBIT O CHRISTIAN APPELLATION EXHIBIT P UCC 1 SHOWING LIEN CREDITOR EXHIBIT Q1 BENEFICIARY TO THE ORIGINAL TRUST EXHIBIT Q2 GOVERNMENT IS TRUSTEE, NOT BENEFICIARY EXHIBIT R CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK EXHIBIT S CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT T NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT EXHIBIT U NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION/REPATRIATION

EXHIBIT V GRANTOR INJURED BEYOND DAMAGE RECOVERY EXHIBIT W CLAIM OF POSTLIMINY EXHIBIT X DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE EXHIBIT Y GRANTOR NOT A FRANCHISE EXHIBIT Z DIVERSION ORDER, STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING ******************************************************************8 EXHIBIT Y Grantor NOT a Franchise

Grantor explicitly denies being a Franchise, or any part of a franchise, for the benefit of any corporate function, action, body, government, or other entitlement outside of Grantors own autonomous Free Inhabitancy, therefore, not subject to any fiction of law or corporation, to wit:

In PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.) we find that "...where there is a capacity to take and hold; the only thing wanting is the franchise of succession, so that the property of the society may pass to successors instead of heirs. Termes de la Ley 123; 1 Bl. Com. 368-72. This and other franchises are the ligaments which unite a body of men into one, and knit them together as a natural person (4 Co. 65 a); creating a corporation, an invisible incorporeal being, a metaphysical person (2 Pet. 223); existing only in contemplation of law, but having the properties of individuality ..." Then we find that, "It is the object and effect of the incorporation, to give to the artificial person the same capacity and rights as a natural person can have..." and, "...they can take and enjoy property to the extent of their franchises as fully as an individual..." Please note near the beginning in bold "...where there is a capacity to take and hold;..." is a stipulation that only applies to the ability to "take and hold [TITLE]". Claimant has no record or evidence that any corporation has a "Right of Soil", except the State Republic chartered. And, remember, the People, not persons, are the State. Now we have discovered that a Corporation is a person, yes, even a natural person. Every "person", or those administering for said "person" outside their corporate "body" has the responsibility of acting and reacting within the parameters of "Common Law", which governs the natural Man. It is understood that all "persons" are governed by statutes, codes, rules, and regulations, but the obligations for corporate, privileged "persons" cannot be enforced upon any Private Man. Wrongful actions by any corporate entity that bring upon Private Man injury shall be recompensed with remedy under Common Law. So with that in mind, Libellees have given the person, agency, and etc., knowledge! Under USC Title 42 1986. Action for neglect to prevent , it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done and having power to prevent or aid in preventing Neglects or refuses so to do shall be liable to the party injured

********************************************************************* DIVERSION ORDER STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

Date: __________________________

To: _______________________________ (name of carrier) __________________________________ __________________________________ (address)

RECONSIGNMENT OR DIVERSION ORDER Straight Bill of Lading

Dated: _____________________________ Number: ____________________________ Consignor: __________________________ Consigned to: ________________________

The undersigned consignor under your straight bill of lading number _____________, dated __________ (month &day) _______ (year), issued by you to __________, of ________________ (address), __________ (city), ___________ (county), ___________ (state), covering goods described in the bill of lading as ____________, hereby instructs you to disregard the original instructions as to place of delivery and recipient on the bill and to divert and deliver the goods to __________, of _______________________ (address), __________ (city), _________ (county), _________ (state), at _________ (location).

The undersigned will pay all reasonable costs and charges of this diversion on your reasonable request, and warrants its authority to effect this diversion or reconsignment. The undersigned shall indemnify and hold you harmless for any loss, damage, or expenses in the event the diversion or reconsignment is challenged.

____________________________________________

(Name of consignor) ********************************************************************************

EXHIBIT X Demand for Full Disclosure Claimant/Grantor does herein order all de facto agencies of the UNITED STATES government and all related and subordinate agencies to disclose the True and Complete Facts and Details of all monetary, currency, and negotiable instrument investments pertaining to the accounts of Grantor that are being, or have been, withheld from ready access by Grantor to be released immediately to Grantor, and avoid Fraud and Deception, as per: Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud. Universal Inv. Co v Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P 2d 485, 127 Ariz. 213. (Ariz App 1980) Where one under duty of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make fully and truthful disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment. Stewart v Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P 2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34. (Ariz. 1937)

EXHIBIT T -

NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT AND RIGHT OF SOIL

TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS COME, be informed, take Notice: The married parents of this living man, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter referred to as Claimant, celebrated Claimants Nativity on September 09, 1944, on Douglas County, Republic of Missouri, Claimant being the sixth of eight children, conceived and born, under lawful Christian parentage, introduced and witnessed, with entry into the Family Bible, into the Birthright of Jacob/Israel, bearing to this day and forward the Birthright and Promise of Claimant's Creator, Yahweh. Claimant declares full Rights as a Legitimate Child under the Law. From Bouvier's Law Dictionary; NATURAL CHILDREN. In the phraseology of the English or American law, natural children are children born out of wedlock, or bastards, and are distinguished from legitimate children; Claimant makes known to the entire world that; Claimant is a Living Man with Standing upon the Land, being of Aboriginal Cherokee and Israelite descent and stock, upon the American terra firma, within the surveyed geographical boundaries of the organic State of Missouri and in capita

holder in due course by Birthright, born a legitimate child, in the image of his Heavenly Father who is Creator of all that is, and by way of this Notice of Birthright, assures all that Claimant is a living man of substance and surety and able to give credit where Claimant chooses, in any amount, without limits, but without limited liability. Claimant is NOT a corporation, fiction, legal entity, legal fiction, debt, debtor (dead deador, debtor), or any other juristic "person". Claimant plainly declares that he was birthed of the water from his Mothers womb upon the dry land of the Nation of Missouri; and that the water from his Mothers womb was the only water whereby Claimant was born. Claimant explicitly denies any association with the berthing of a new vessel in the world of commerce other than Claimants own person, yielding nothing to the assumption that any vessel owned by any legal entity, legal fiction, or corporate association that may have been created at, or near, the same time had, or has, any semblance of association with Claimant. With this knowledge of the Truth, this Claimant, offers testimony before any Juristic Society, Counsel of Men, or any fiction of character, that Claimant is not "bonded or bound" to any, save Claimant's Master, Yahshua, the only begotten Son of the Living Creator, who became Claimant's surety by way of Blood Sacrifice at the Price of thirty pieces of silver (a commercial transaction), given into the hand of a hired liar and deceiver (a fiction), working in conjunction with the Courts of that day, an estimated 2000 years ago. Therefore, Claimant cannot be induced into any "body politic" contrary with sound Christian Doctrine instilled upon Claimants conscience. This Notice of Birthright is offered as Corrective NOTICE that any Certificates of Birth entered into the fictional corporate world of commerce is based in fraud, propagated in fraud, brought forward in deceit, and joined in deliberate and malicious trespass upon the conscience and free will of a man bearing the Birthright of Jacob/Israel and Right of Soil. This NOTICE of Birthright is Fair Notice and Warning for any and all Actors, Fictions, and Corporate Representatives that the Natal Soil of this Child of the Jacob/Israel Birthright was NOT a "Port of Entry" for any newly berthed "Legal Entity" to be entered into the fictional, factional or corporate marketplace as bond, surety, equity, futures, chattel, stock, or trade material, and stands as correction of any assumption, presumption, or position in any corporate realm to the contrary. As all jurisdiction flows from Right of Soil, please take Notice of the following: POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845), " We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed... ...[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is

expressly granted... ...Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law..."

Claimant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined. ********************************************************************* . EXHIBIT R CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK

Claimant herein declares his Claim of Famous Mark to be his own and not the property of any other. TITLE 15, CH 22, SUB CH III 1125 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden Release date: 2005-08-01 (a) Civil action (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. (2) As used in this subsection, the term any person includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement [idem sonanse] under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. (b) Importation

Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized. (c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks (1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another persons commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to (A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. [Berth registry is the principal register of the Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.] (2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 1116 of this title unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owners reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark [NOTE: birth/berth certificate is worth "how much??" [ 11 million credits] on world trade market, and, how many "good works" - "goods" have you provided to society?]. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 1117 (a) and 1118 of this title, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity. (3) The ownership by a person ["personam", not "in persona"] of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement. (4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark. (B) Noncommercial use of a mark. (C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary. (d) Cyberpiracy prevention (1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section706 of title 18 or section220506 of title 36. (B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to (I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; (III) the persons prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (IV) the persons bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name; (V) the persons intent to divert consumers from the mark owners online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; (VI) the persons offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or

having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the persons prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VII) the persons provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the persons intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the persons prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VIII) the persons registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and (IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the persons domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section. (ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. (C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. (D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrants authorized licensee. (E) As used in this paragraph, the term traffics in refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration. (2) (A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if (i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c) of this section; and (ii) the court finds that the owner (I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or (II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by

(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and (bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action. (B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process. (C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which (i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or (ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court. (D) (i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall (I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the courts control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and (II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court. (ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order. (3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable. (4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE OF TRADE-NAME, TRADE-MARK Copyright Notice: All rights reserved regarding common-law copyright of trade-name/trademark, JOHN QUINCY JONESas well as any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of said tradename/trade-markCommon Law Copyright 1965 upon attainment of age of majority by John-Quincy: Jones. Said common-law tradename/trade-mark, JOHN QUINCY JONES, may neither be used, nor reproduced, neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter Secured Party. With the Intent of being contractually bound, any juristic person, as well as the agent of said juristic person, shall display, nor otherwise use in any manner, any of the common-law trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES, nor the common-law copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, nor any variation in the spelling of, JOHN QUINCY JONES, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Secured Party, as signified by Secured Partys signature in blue ink. Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES, and all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Secured Party is not now, nor has Secured Party ever been, an accommodation party, nor a surety, for the purported debtor, i.e., JOHN QUINCY JONES nor for any derivative of, nor for any variation in the spelling of, said name, nor for any other juristic person, and is so-indemnified and held harmless by Debtor, i.e., JOHN QUINCY JONES in Hold-harmless and Indemnity Agreement No. (UCC1) 123456789, dated the Seventh Day of the Second Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Five, against any and all claims, legal actions, orders, warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits, costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, as are due and as might become due, now existing and as might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by Debtor for any and every reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever. Selfexecuting Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized use: By this Copyright Notice, both the juristic person and the agent of said juristic person, hereinafter jointly and severally User, consent and agree that any use of JOHN QUINCY JONES other than authorized use as set forth above constitutes unauthorized use and counterfeiting of Secured Partys common-law copyrighted property and contractually binds User and renders this Copyright Notice a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones is Secured Party, and signifies that User: (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in all of Users assets, land and personal property, and all of Users interest in assets, land, and personal property, in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each occurrence of use of any of the common-law-copyrighted trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES, as well as for each and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of, and variations in the spelling of, JOHN QUINCY JONES, plus costs, plus triple damages; (2) authenticates this Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones is Secured Party, and wherein User pledges all of Users property; i.e., all assets, land, consumer goods farm products, inventory, equipment, money, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letter-of-credit rights, chattel

paper, instruments, deposit accounts, accounts, documents, and general intangibles, and all Users interest in all such foregoing property, now owned and hereafter acquired, now existing and hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing Users contractual obligation in favor of Secured Party for Users unauthorized use of Secured Partys common-law copyrighted property; (3) consents and agrees with Secured Partys filing of a UCC Financing Statement in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorders office, wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones is Secured Party; (4) consents and agrees that said UCC Financing Statement described above in paragraph (3) is a continuing financing statement, and further consents and agrees with Secured Partys filing of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured Partys perfected security interest in all of Users property and interest property pledged as collateral in this Security Agreement and described above in paragraph (2), until Users contractual obligation theretofore incurred has been fully satisfied; (5) consents and agrees with Secured Partys filing of any UCC Financing Statement, as described above in paragraphs (3) and (4), as well as the filing of any Security Agreement, as described above in paragraph (2), in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorders office; (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings described in paragraphs (4) and (5) above are not, and may not be considered, bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus; (7) waives all defenses; and (8) appoints Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon Users default re Users contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party as set forth below under Payment Terms and Default Terms, granting Secured Party full authorization and power for engaging in any and all actions on behalf of User, as Secured Party, in Secured Partys sole discretion deems appropriate, and User further consents and agrees that this appointment of Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon Users default is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest. User further consents and agrees with all of the following additional terms of Selfexecuting Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use: Payment Terms: In accordance with fees for unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES as set forth above, User hereby consents and agrees that User shall pay Secured Party all unauthorized-use fees in full within ten (10) days of the date User is sent Secured Partys invoice, hereinafter invoice, itemizing said fees. Default Terms: In event of non-payment in full of all unauthorized use fees by User within ten (10) days of date invoice is sent. User shall be deemed in default and: (a) all of Users property and interest in property pledged as collateral by User, as described above in paragraph (2), immediately becomes, i.e., is property of Secured Party; (b) Secured Party is appointed Users Authorized Representative as set forth above in paragraph (8); and (C) User consents and agrees that Secured Party may take possession of, as well as otherwise dispose of in any manner that Secured Party, in Secured Partys sole discretion, deems appropriate, including, but not limited by, sale at auction at any time following Users default, and without further notice, any and all of Users former property and interest in property, as described above in paragraph (2), formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, in respect of this Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of

Unauthorized Use, that Secured Party, again in Secured Partys sole discretion, deems appropriate. Terms for Curing Default: Upon event of default, as set forth above under Default Terms, irrespective of any and all of Users former property and interest in property, in the possession of, as well as disposed of by, Secured Party, as authorized above under Default Terms, User may cure Users default regarding the remainder of Users former property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral that is neither in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of, by Secured Party within twenty (20) days of date of Users default only by payment in full. Terms of Strict Foreclosure: Users non-payment in full of all unauthorized-use fees itemized in Invoice within said twenty (20) day period for curing default as set forth above under Terms for Curing Default authorizes Secured Partys immediate non-judicial strict foreclosure on any and all remaining property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, which is not in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of by, Secured Party upon expiration of said twenty (20) day default-curing period. Ownership subject to common-law copyright and UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement filed with the UCC filing office. Record Owner: John-Quincy: Jones Autograph Common Law Copyright 1965. Unauthorized use of any of John-Quincy: Jones incurs same unauthorized-use fees as those associated with JOHN QUINCY JONES as set forth above in paragraph (1) under Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use. ***********************************

EXHIBIT S Claim of Ownership CERTIFICATE - Claim of Ownership via Warehouse Receipt I, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter known as Claimant, do herein place Claim of Ownership over, upon and against any, and all, facets, aspects, phases and relations of all actions of Real Existence and True Character signified by a/any piece of parchment, paper or electronic data entry that makes reference to the Living Man of the Male Gender herein referred to as Claimant by any Name, Title, Number (or, group of numbers) or Assignment other than Claimants Christian Appellation. All Fictions, Legal Entities and Vessels in commerce that make any reference to Claimant are herein claimed as Collateral and property belonging to Claimant.

According to Barrons Dictionary of Banking Terms, a certificate is a paper establishing an ownership claim. The registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933. Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called warehouse receipts, now printed on banknote paper. The items included on a warehouse receipt, as described at Section 7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are: ~1. The location of the warehouse where the goods are stored (residence) Claimant was born of a woman on, not in, Douglas County on Missouri State and Claimant has no residence, but Lives within His own carbon based body of Flesh, Bone and Blood. ~2. The date of issue of the receipt(Date issued) Claimants Nativity was (according to records in Family Bible) September 09, 1944, however, Informants issued, or caused to be issued, a fictitious Warehouse Receipt stating a berthdate of a newly launched vessel in commerce on January 15, 1945. ~3. The consecutive number of the receipt(found on the certificate, usually in red) File number 123-45 is found on the Notification of Birth Registration that was recorded at the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Subsequent copy of Birth Certificate shows State File Number 124-44-****** with a bond number on the back side, lower right corner, ******. ~4. A description of the goods or of the packages containing them (Name, sex, DOB, etc.) Claimants Christian Appellation was not found on said Warehouse Receipt; however, multiple misnomers of similar sound were on the face of said document. One can comprehend that said document is making reference to Claimant through mention of sex, place of birth, etc.; therefore, Claimant makes Claim to such collateral. ~5. The signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent (clerk, doctor, state registrar, etc.) J.C. Capt, Director of the Census signed on the lower left corner of said document. An indeterminate person signed as Special Agent, Bureau of the Census. According to Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th ed., Birth and marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as warehouse receipts under the Uniform Commercial Code. Warehouse receipt. A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security. Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. [In order to borrow, collateral must be pledged. A Maxim of Law states that one cannot pledge what it does not own.]

All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated warehouse receipts for births and marriages in order to pledge a fictional vessel they created on paper as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserves banks. The Full Faith and Credit of the American people is said to be that which back the nations debt. That simply means the American peoples ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers (slaves), the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources human resources, that is. Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of humans began on July 14, 1862, when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a per head basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle, chattel) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without United States, 28 USC 1746(1), that the foregoing is true and correct. L.S. by___________________________________authorized representative

******************************************************** EXHIBIT Q(2) Gov. as Trustee, NOT Beneficiary OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (of the Public) ARE TRUSTEES Am Juris Prud - public officers ARE trustees :* *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, 247* As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.

[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

****************************************************************

EXHIBIT O Christian Appellation Statutory Declaration of True Name and NOTICE and Declaration of Law and Jurisdiction I am recognized and known by my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family. If I choose to respond, it is only to such Christian Appellation. I am not a corporation, nor a "person", therefore, no legislative court shall ever obtain "personal jurisdiction" over me.

I cannot use copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against any legislative, or executive, body, therefore, no legislative, nor executive, body can use said copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against me; and, said "court" fails to obtain " in rem jurisdiction" over me.

I have no "residence" within any geographical jurisdiction, I do not "re-side" within any political jurisdiction, and I am not a magistrate of any federal foreign fictional government, so I have no entourage for any "residency". I keep house within the geographical Missouri Republic, or in whatever Republic I so choose, therefore, there is no "state within a state" of federal jurisdiction, nor is there a political overlay of federal area or postal Zone Improvement Plan, therefore, there is no "federal jurisdiction" over me, nor is there obtainable any "venue jurisdiction" over me.

I recognize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as contraband and gambling tokens, issued, maintained, and controlled within the Private realm of a Private corporation, therefore, I do not own, handle, nor utilize any of them outside the Rule of Necessity, which is a Rule of Common Law, originating well before the establishment of the British Colonies on American soil. Therefore, using only barter, silver, and where absolutely necessary under said ancient rule, Federal Reserve Notes (which are not of substance), no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "substantive jurisdiction" over me.

I am who I say I am, not who, or what (person), any corporate administrator says I am. Since there is no lawful money of exchange available to "pay" any debt, or to "pay" any fines, fees, licenses, penalties, court costs, etc., I cannot be a contemnor, as I am in contempt of nothing . No Private Man, nor corporate body or agency thereof, can demand that I do the impossible. As it is impossible to "pay" for anything, no fictional corporate governmental body can demand that I do the impossible, therefore, no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "legislative or executive jurisdiction" over me.

I am not aware of the existence of any judicial branch of any level of true Republican government nor is any available to me, therefore, no "judicial jurisdiction" is obtainable over me. I am not a U.S. citizen, a United States citizen, a 14th Amendment citizen, nor in any other manner do I "cite-I-Zen". I am, therefore, NOT an enemy of the "state" under any fictional corporate charter regulations and no "corporate jurisdiction" is obtainable over me to condemn me to a category of enemy of any "state". My Constitution is the Holy Writ and I claim only one "color", that being the color of white in the form of a "flag of truce", making known to all that I have no controversy with any. I have no "license" to operate contrary to true law. I have no "permit" to temporarily suspend true law, therefore, no "Admiralty jurisdiction" is obtainable over me. I observe only the True Laws brought forward by the Ancient and Holy Writ, engulfing all established within principles of the Ten Commandments and the later Commandments to love the Lord My God with all my mind, soul, and body; and to, love my neighbor as myself; this is my political establishment, therefore, no fictional political jurisdiction is obtainable over me. I exist only in, and respond only to, my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: Jones. I do not recognize, nor give cognizance to, any fictional corporate entity, nor do I recognize any of their

agents. No fictional, quasi-governmental agent/agency can obtain parity with me; therefore, no jurisdiction of agency is obtainable over me. I am in my True Character, a Private Man upon the soil, maintaining only as a private man can, the Right of Soil. I am not a reflection, image, fiction, or other "person". I own and maintain my own "person" for purpose of contracting in the realm of commerce in a lawful and upright manner. My word is my bond when dealing with men. I offer my "signature" when contracting with fictional entities in commerce. Said "signature" (sig=no nature=alive) means no nature, thus, not alive - it is a bond offered into debt/death. For this reason such "scribble" is called "cursive writing", cursed communication with the dead, the fiction. By being responsible for my own "person" under True Law, I exercise my "personal rights" referred to by Thomas Jefferson, and maintain my lawful standing, impeccable under law, I do not yield "Character jurisdiction" over me, or my "persons". Respectfully Presented, by _________________________ agent John-Quincy: Jones, sui juris . ******************************************************************** EXHIBIT Q Beneficiary to the Original Trust (Correcting the Records) Introductory Statement: The lawful Trust, established within the parameters of Trust Doctrine (see EXHIBIT E), was converted, under unlawful conversion, into a Dead Persons Estate and into that of a Debtor. Under the law, Debt and Death mean the same; Debt means Dead. Various Treaties between the United States and offshore foreign countries often appoint Emissaries and Ambassadors to represent the death of the UNITED STATES. Therefore, for all practical purposes, Grantor is deemed to be the Executor of the Estate, rather than the Beneficiary to the Trust. For purposes of this, and associated/annexed documents, Beneficiary means Executor. Certain established parameters of language are: VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits VALUE IS ACQUIRED: [as per U.C.C. 1-201(44)] 1. With an exchange of Rights for a binding commitment to extend credit;

2. As Security for Satisfaction of a pre-existing Claim; 3. By Accepting Delivery to a pre-existing contract for Purchase; 4. Exchange for any consideration to support a contract; 5. An Interest in a thing/issue is given a Transferable Value; 6. Subrogation places a transfer of Rights from the Visible to the Invisible; The Right of Authority is through a Birth Certificate issued by the STATE and ACCEPTED FOR VALUE; My acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section 1), is a Binding Agreement to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee. The Presidents oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the President (executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a constitutional oath. Value is anything recognized as a pledge or the result of a pledge. The birth certificate is the Resultant Trust of the Presidents oath. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would just be evidence of the obligation every Unites States citizen owes to the United States. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would not be evidence of the obligation the United States owes to the people. On the public side, the birth certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S. citizen to be a surety for the United States. On the public side, it is security for the pledge of allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by its citizens. On the private side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a promise made by the President to the people. On the private side, it is security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the People as beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the babys physical description that was symbolically delivered by an informant (Mother) to the United States. The setoff resulting from accepting an instrument for value is a distribution from the trust. SUPPORTING NOTES: Remember, when you accept an Oath, you consummate an agreement, a contract. When you accept for value, you are accepting the consideration the United States has offered to you as evidence of an obligation it has to you as a beneficiary; as well as whatever consideration is offered on the instrument that is being transferred to you through the United States citizen you represent. The United States is humbling itself by asking you to give it assistance. It is applying for credit on every instrument that is issued or transferred for value. If you just receive one of

these instruments [even a utility bill] without accepting it for value and returning it for value, the presumption is that you intend to pay it. You can pay it with a check, or you can pay it with your prepaid account. It is up to you, but you have to pay it immediately, or you will be deemed to be in dishonor. If you A4V, you can use a distribution from the trust to pay the instrument. If you just retain it or argue about the existence or amount of the request, you will pay it with a check, tangible property, or your body. Did the United States offer a birth certificate to you? Did you receive it? Did you accept it for value and return it as a security? If you do not accept it for value and deposit it as an asset, you have voluntarily waived rights to a distribution that is available to you. In a purely commercial system, rights are remedies. Parties to a modern commercial transaction need remedies in the event one of them breaches the terms of the agreement. The birth certificate is a remedy, and represents an antecedent claim you have against the United States. It is also evidence of a preexisting contract. It represents the prepaid account you have available to you for setoffs. Acceptance is an agreement and leads to a binding contract. If you dont set the terms of that binding contract, the United States will.

Beneficiary NOTICES Presidential Delegates: DHS (executive) Sec of Treasury (legislative) DOJ (judicial) Sec of State (administrative) ALL is in reference to a Pre-existing Contract, a Trust Receipt, known as a Certificate of Live Birth, to wit: 1. A person (corporate United States) gives value (certificated security = birth certificate) for rights (to create money on the signature of the man = borrow from the people) as security (promise not to deny or disparage rights of the people) for satisfaction (acknowledgement of obligation to people) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value ( signature on application for birth certificate ) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction (distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 3. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value ( Constitution) for rights (to be recognized internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction (acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay international creditors). 4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value ( Article VI oath) for rights (to hold an office) as security (promise to support this constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (peoples beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

5. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for rights (to be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to abide by terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a preexisting claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy). 6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (peoples beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). Make a note of this The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath, is the ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate). It is the holder who acquires a security interest in the instrument, IF he takes the instrument for value. It is not the issuer who has the security interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability. Judicial court orders can transfer rights in property, creating a security interest in the title to the subject property, but that is not how it works with an instrument that is issued for value. An order for a judicial court-created security interest is not the type of instrument that a transferee would take for value; but, an order for an executive court-created security interest is a type of instrument that a transferee would take for value. United States courts are not judicial courts; they are territorial courts and were created through Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 by the power granted to the Congress to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court. Their orders do not result in security interests through judicial proceedings. To avoid fraud, the instrument has to be issued for value. It gives the transferee (a U.S. citizen) a security interest in the instrument. The only piece of paper a man has the is proof of the security interest he has is the birth certificate. It has no value on the private side, but it does on the public side if he deposits with an appropriate banker, who can then be the mans securities intermediary, and the man can be the entitlement holder. This is explained in UCC Article 8 in the 500 series. An Order that a securities intermediary deposit the birth certificate makes it a security. It appears that the birth certificate is not an actual security until it passes to a second holder, i.e., from the issuer (State of Missouri) to the Department of Commerce of the United States (the Department of Transportation, Bureau of the Census). The United States uses the certificate until you decide you want to use it. You have the priority right to it as a security for the obligation the United States has to you. It was issued to you. A bond can be given written against the security (bond = birth certificate) he is holding. A promissory note can be written against the bond that is written against the security. Such a promissory note would be an order from the entitlement holder to the securities intermediary to use the security he is maintaining for a specific purpose.

UCC 8-102(a)(8) Entitlement order means a notification communicated to a securities intermediary directing transfer or redemption of a financial asset to which the entitlement holder has a security entitlement. UCC 8-505. Duty of Securities Intermediary with Respect to Payments and Distributions. (a) a securities intermediary shall take action to obtain a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if: (1) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary; or (2) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to attempt to obtain the payment or distribution. (b) A securities intermediary is obligated to its entitlement holder for a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset if the payment or distribution is received by the securities intermediary. Since securities intermediaries have obligations to entitlement holders, the securities intermediaries must have capacity to act. That is done under the premise that a securities intermediary is declared in the commercial code to be a purchaser for value. The indirect holding system of the United States would not function as expected if the securities intermediary did not have capacity to act. Without the rights of an owner or a purchaser, the securities intermediary would be powerless to act in the intended manner. UCC 8-116 Securities Intermediary as Purchaser For Value A securities intermediary that receives a financial asset and establishes a security entitlement to the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder is a purchaser for value of the financial asset. UCC 3-303. Value and consideration A. An instrument is issued or transferred for value if: 3. The instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due; Giving value from 1-201 is not the same as transferring for value from 3-303. The transferor (issuer) in 303 usually wants to get a valuable consideration back for an instrument he issues for value, and he wants a new contract on which he or the person he represents is the creditor. When an instrument issued for value is received and retained, it is accepted as though the receiver has given it a blank endorsement, and the transfer of liability has been successful. A blank endorsement waives all the defects, and the main defect in an instrument issued for value is that there is no security attached to it. If it were not for the inherent security interest in the instrument itself, the whole project would be fraud.

The issuer is not giving value; he is seeking value. The issuer is not giving consideration; he is seeking consideration. These abnormalities can be cured if the transferee gives it a qualified endorsement as a payment and returns the payment for closure of the account. After acceptance through a blank endorsement, the issuers consideration is presumed, and the endorser is liable on the instrument. A commitment (implied or express) by the transferee (to take on the liability) through a general acceptance would be a valuable consideration on his part, and would result in a binding contract. He is then obligated on the instrument to make immediate payment. If you cannot tell on the face of the instrument if it is a promise or an order, it can be treated as either. When the payee receives a check, it is a promise. When he negotiates it by endorsing it and delivering to a bank, it is an order. Until someone gives an endorsement, an instrument issued for value is not negotiable. If the transferee makes the instrument negotiable as a security with a blank endorsement, the transferee must pay it. He can give it a qualified endorsement by accepting it for value, to make it a payment. When it is subsequently presented to a third party (banker), it is an order from the maker to the third party to pay it. The instrument issued for value becomes the very payment that pays it. If the transferee gives it a blank endorsement (by his silence) and does not return it with his check, he makes the instrument his promise and also makes the instrument negotiable as a security. Whoever has a right to enforce it can negotiate it. If the transferee has no idea what to do with it, he might inadvertently make it a security and commit himself to pay it. It is his choice. There is a price for ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity; it is lack of knowledge. If an instrument is issued and transferred for value, the person who is the transferee can make it the issuers note (promise) and the transferees draft (order). The transferee can be the one entitled to enforce the instrument if he gives it a proper endorsement. If he does not, the transferor is the person entitled to enforce the instrument, and he will enforce it. A case designed to seize property of a U.S. citizen is called a penal action. It is not civil, and it is not criminal. It is based on violation of statutes that were implemented to facilitate collections from U.S. citizens to pay the national debt . Libels of information are used to obtain arrest warrants from the clerks of executive courts so the proceeding can be commenced. These are not cases; they are proceedings. When an indictment (true bill), which is actually a libel of information, or other bill is presented to a U.S. citizen by the United States, an obligation on a preexisting claim against the United States (national debt) is being transferred to the transferee (surety - defendant or debtor). The bill is issued for value. The endorser is expected to create the money, both for the payment and for the security. The United States wants the U.S. citizen to supply the value. There is no actual security, antecedent claim, or preexisting contract behind it. No money is needed if the transferee treats it as a payment and sends it to the issuers banker with a qualified endorsement. This puts the endorser in the drivers seat and makes him the party entitled to enforce the instrument. On the other hand, no money is needed if the transferee treats it as a security by giving it a blank

endorsement and keeping (holding) it. This puts the issuer or his principal in the drivers seat and entitles the principal to enforce the instrument. Since 1933, the only money in circulation is money of account that is created on demand at the time it is needed to satisfy an immediate need. If a bill is issued with nothing to secure it, it has to be issued for value, because the money to pay it (promise to back it) has not been created. If the transferee receives a bill and does not pay it immediately, he is in default. Some say the reason it cannot be paid is because no check to pay it was included with the bill. The instrument is the check if it is taken as a payment, made negotiable with a proper endorsement, and turned into a draft (issuers order). If the transferee accepts it for value and returns it to the issuers banker (Secretary of the Treasury) as payment to balance the books and close the account, he is not in default. Since it was issued for value, and transferred for value, it can be accepted for value. To be a holder in due court, the endorser must take (accept) the instrument for value. See 3-302, Holder in due course above. Under Article 3, if an instrument is issued for value, it is also issued for consideration. The issuer either gives the consideration through the instrument, or issues the instrument for value to receive the consideration from the transferee. When an instrument is accepted (taken) for value, it can be returned to pay the bill, and the transaction is finished. All the required bookkeeping entries for an accrual bookkeeping system can be made based on the offer for value and the acceptance for value. This bookkeeping cannot be done if the bill is not returned with an appropriate endorsement though. If the bill is not returned, the bookkeeper has an unbalanced account. All accounts must be closed at the end of the business day in an accrual system. An unbalanced account necessitates entries into the accounts payable and accounts receivable ledgers. If you are the cause of a payable, you are also responsible for the receivable, so your retention of the instrument is deemed to be a blank endorsement. If you do not balance that account, an executive court will do it for you. That usually results in a statutory penalty being applied against you through the U.S. citizen you represent. Much more could be said, but for the sake of brevity, is available upon request. ************************************************* EXHIBIT L Demand for Exchange of Value 31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart A, 103.11 (ll) Transmittor. The sender of the first transmittal order in a transmittal of funds. The term transmittor includes an originator, except where the transmittor's financial institution is a financial institution or foreign financial agency other than a bank or foreign bank.

(vv) Stored value. Funds or monetary value represented in digital electronics format (whether or not specially encrypted) and stored or capable of storage on electronic media in such a way as to be retrievable and transferable electronically. VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits Claimant has no record or evidence that True and Honest Value and/or related Services has ever been manifested on behalf of Claimant, the Living Man, as per: On March 3, 1851 Congress passed a law called " The Public Liability Statute." As a result, ship (the numbered vessel registered after the application for a Birth Certificate) owners (the corporate U.S.S.A.) are now exempt from damages to goods while involved in commerce; now, the shippers are responsible for such goods under maritime law, whereby we are responsible for any loss which occurs while involved in maritime commerce, which is a gambling policy, which is an insurance tontine scheme which wagers for profit. All insurance falls under Maritime Law. This was/is a cunning and despicable plot to re-institute a tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve. This is FRAUD. When a person, a vessel that may enter commerce, commences action into the credit system (which is really a Debt System) of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve) they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint venture is the use of the communal credit (debt), wherein an insurable interest has been created. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax, right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit. Anything that involves Federal Reserve Notes is under Maritime Law because FRNs are an insurance premium. In De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction . Maritime or Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit policy. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and replaced by a wagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law. I could display well over a dozen case cites that explain the use of FRNs is wagering, but for space and brevity I will not provide. Remembering that FRNs are Negotiable Instruments, one viable defense against such a Beast as herein discussed is to challenge it at every stage of its offense. The UCC 3305(a)(1)(iii) affirms... ...one of the other defenses is that the instrument is illegal, when that instrument has been deemed to mean for collecting usury or gambling debts. [Usury equals INTEREST; it is also a gamble]

The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15) is bankrupt on the authority of Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an "obligor/grantor" to the Federal Reserve Bank created by the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 265, Chapter 6. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law, not Public Law (see Exhibit K - Interlocking Directorates for full explanation), nor Public Policy, as in reference to a Mr. Lewis which was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. government for damages. The court ruled, "...that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal government could not be held responsible."- Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982). Congress (having exclusive jurisdiction over that ten mile square territory known as Washington, D.C.) agreed in the Federal Reserve Act to give that bank system a paramount and "permanent" (ex-warranto 1913 to 1933) lien on the United States (UCC 9-307(h), the United States is located IN Washington, D.C.) assets and the USER of said bank notes by the authority of 38 Stat. 265, Ch. 6, pp. 266-267. The USER agrees, as a "parole promise," to accept the status as an obligor/grantor and to hypothecate all "his" assets to the United States and thereby to the Federal Reserve which is merely a private corporation, and not "federal." The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a collection agreement as a "USER" fee for the USE of said bank notes (see Interlocking Directorates). I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of Federal Reserve Notes as I cannot consent and do not assent to be an obligor/grantor to said Federal Reserve Bank. I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of said bank notes on the authority of MacLeod v. Hoover, (June 22, 1925) No. 26395, S. Ct. Louisiana; 105 So.Rptr. 305. That court citing U.S. Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheaton 338; 6 L.Ed. 343. Therefore, I refuse for good cause shown, any, and all, corporate and/or governmental agents/agencies and participating affiliates, to induce me to be a tort feasor to the Constitution for The United States of America where at Article 1, Section 10, it states, "No State shall emit bills of credit; make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts." The Congress of the United States of America, by the authority of the Gold Bullion Act of 1985, Public Law 99-185, December 17, 1985, 99 Statutes 1177, has given its intent that all Americans can no longer be forced into an obligor/grantor status to said Federal Reserve Bank Notes.

There is no debating the established fact that: Federal Reserve Notes of Debt can be made legal tender for parties of/with a relationship to/with the Federal Government; i.e., those persons who have a nexus/benefit such as; federal government employees, recipient of federal largesse, elected federal office holders, or those who choose to use Federal Reserve Notes, either knowingly or unknowingly, but states and individuals cannot be compelled to use Federal Reserve Notes. [I am an Individual and, in a certain sense, a foreign state.] All Administrators, Agents, and Agencies must take judicial notice of TEXAS CODE (imported under Equal Footing Doctrine) Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures, to wit: "All recognizances, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the United States only," and, Nevada. NRS 99.010 Dollar, cent and mill to be money of account. The money of account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill. All the accounts in the public offices, other public accounts, and all proceedings in courts, shall be kept and had in conformity with this section," and, Nevada. NRS 99.030 Obligation, judgments or executions payable in legal money. After February 15, 1893, all official bonds and undertakings, and all obligations of debt, judgments or executions stated in terms of dollars and to be paid in money shall be payable in legal money authorized by the Congress of the United States," and, Title 31 USC Section 371: "The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredth part of a dollar; and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation," and, Title 31 USC Section 311: "It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money...." THE COINAGE ACT OF 1792 IS STILL CURRENT AND EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT A DOLLAR IS.

Title 31 USC 408 prohibits the redemption of any currency into gold and Title 31 USC 405(a)-3 prohibits the redemption of any United States currency dollar for dollar into gold

and silver. So, the law itself prohibits Affiant from using any Lawful Money. And, for a check to be a negotiable instrument, it must contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money and be payable on demand or at a definite time (UCC 3-103 (b) (c)). Thus, neither the bank nor this Affiant is able to comply with the law of money and cannot be held a contemnor. Currency, Money as it is commonly known, or thought to be, is "contraband" at statute!!! Affiant has thoroughly invoked Rule Of Necessity for any mistakes made by way of usage of Federal Reserve Notes. Also, TITLE 31 USC, 306.10, 2 - Taxpayer identifying numbers are not required for foreign governments, nonresident aliens not engaged in trade or business within the United States

DEEPER FRAUD: SUPPORTING NOTES "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152. Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5 Phila. 366. 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879); Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835), and, "Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars." U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk. And, "Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness and promise of payment." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al, 223 N.Y.S. 481. ""Money" does not include treasury notes". Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536, and, "In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling greenbacks or national currency notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And, "The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part of the circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be considered as money; but, in the strict sense of the term, they are not included therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C. 58,60. And, ""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated as such." Johnson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325. And,

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment charging that the defendant played at a game of faro for money--cannot be sustained by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And, "The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and violence, and with intent to steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St. 422,426.

******************************************************* In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones Who may be NOTICED at: C/O 123 West Columbus Street Somewhere, Missouri Republic Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

NOTICE OF: DIPLOMATIC PROTEST (To be applied in conjunction with NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM and NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION) Public international law is proper law regarding unilateral international transactions or 'acts' concerning subjects and objects of international law: Note: Renunciation as follows means Expatriation from de facto oligarchy and Repatriation into the de jure Republic. As international acts concerning the public law succession to sovereignties, the proper law applicable to such dynastic renunciations and their proper interpretation is public international law concerning subjects of international law rather than the law of the place where the renunciation happens to be signed:

A renunciation is an unilateral International transaction subject to public international law as the proper law: See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, Nos. 486 & 488. Similar to treaties, the municipal or domestic law of the place where a renunciation concerning the succession to subjects of public international law is made does not constitute the proper law of that renunciation: See Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), 100-101; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, Nos. 21 &22; Article 13 of The Declaration of Rights and Duties of States, 9 June 1949 by the International Law Commission of the United Nations; 1887 U. S, Foreign Relations 751 at 753. See also Articles 27, 46, and 47 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The same is true of any treaty: The proper law of that treaty is public international law rather than the municipal (domestic) law of the place where the treaty was signed. Thus, a treaty may properly affect international rights in a manner which might not be recognised for private law rights under the municipal law of the place where that treaty was signed -- the treaty as an international act concerning subjects and objects of international law being governed by public international law, not the local municipal law. The validity of dynastic renunciations referencing subjects of public international law is subject only to the peremptory norms of international law. See Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), pp. 213-236. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, p. 417. See also Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Similar to treaties, the renunciation of rights to subjects of international law are governed by the canons of construction applicable to treaties and international agreements. Survival of de jure Sovereignty and Governments-in-Exile: Under the doctrines of public international law a ruler who is deprived of the government of his country by either an invader or revolutionaries remains the legitimate de jure Sovereign of that Country while the de facto regime set up by the revolutionaries or the invader is considered an "usurper", both constitutionally and internationally. See Hugo Grotius De jure belli ac pacis, libri Tres, Book I, Chapter 4, Nos. 15-19. Such de jure possession of sovereignty continues so long as the de jure ruler or government does not surrender his sovereignty to the usurper. See Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis Juris Gentium, Chapter 10, Nos. 9-11. Upon the fall, dispossession, or usurpation of a monarchy, the de jure legal rights to the succession of that monarchy may be kept alive indefinitely through the legal vehicle of

making diplomatic protests against the usurpation. See Emerich Vattel, Le Droit des gens, Book II, Chapter II, Nos. 145-146. Such Claimants are de jure Sovereigns and, as such, Head of the Government-in-Exile of their usurped country. Governments-in-Exile are subjects of public international law, and matters relating to them are within the scope of the jurisdiction of public international law as the applicable proper law ... rather than the law of the place where that Government-in-Exile may be located. See Whitman, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, pp. 921-930. F. E. Oppenheim, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," 36 American Journal of International Law (1942), pp. 568-595. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, No. 144. The public international law regarding the legal effect of protests against the usurpation of sovereignty applies to republics as well as to monarchies, democracies, or oligarchies: The United States of America refused to recognise the 1939 Soviet usurpation of the three Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia , and Lithuania. This facilitated the maintenance of Governments-in-Exile of the Baltic Republics and the maintenance of embassies in Washington, D. C., which persisted through the Cold War Era until these countries managed to recover their independence. Accordingly, matters pertaining to de jure Governments-in-Exile are matters of public international law. The de jure sovereignty of a state which has been usurped by a foreign conqueror is not extinguished by such usurpation but survives as long as such sovereignty is kept alive by competent diplomatic protests. See Philip Marshall Brown, "Sovereignty in Exile," 35 American Journal of International Law (1941), p. 666-668. Exiled Sovereigns and Governments choice of law that of usurped state to govern political and public acts: Under public international law a Government-in-Exile, monarchical or republican, is deemed to have the implied constitutional power to perform all normal acts of state ... including those acts which by its own constitution would require the consent of an organ of government, such as a parliament, the congress, senate, and the higher Supreme Court of the People, which are at present suspended due to the conditions arising from a usurpation of sovereignty. See F. E. Oppenheim, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," 36 American Journal of International Law (1942), pp. 568 at 581-582. In such cases the choice of law by the parties making the renunciation of dynastic rights concerning sovereignties is the public law of that former State rather than the law of the place where the renunciation was signed.

Choice of law is very common in private law commercial law contracts: A grain supplier located in Argentina shipping wheat to a purchaser in Russia upon a Liberian ship will commonly contract that the law relating to the shipment of the wheat will be British law (because British shipping law has been so well interpreted) even though neither the buyer, seller or the shipper has any 'contact' with the United Kingdom. In all such cases courts will apply the law of choice as the substantive law governing that contract as the proper law applicable to that contract rather than the law of the place where the contract was signed, the goods were delivered, or the nationality of the vessel making delivery. Thus, if a Government-in-Exile located abroad (say the Governments-in-Exile of one of the three Baltic Republics during the Cold War Era) makes a public law act concerning its former State which has been usurped (as were the three Baltic Republics by the Soviet Union), the legal validity of the acts of that Government-in-Exile are governed by the public or constitutional law of that usurped State rather than by the law of the place where the Government-in-Exile happens to be located. Survival of private law rights acquired under former sovereign: The fall, revolution, or usurpation of a former government or state brings into play the international law of state succession to govern resulting legal affairs: Briefly, within the usurped State the public law of the former sovereign governing constitutional and public institutional matters must, of necessity, fall. However, the statutory law of the former Sovereign survives to govern private legal rights acquired or 'vested' under such statutory law of the former Sovereign. As 'vested' or acquired private law legal rights, such survive the change or succession of sovereign. Such 'vested' private law legal rights must be recognised by the new or usurping sovereign. The general proposition of public international law is that the municipal law of a country is not changed by a change of sovereignty. Private law rights acquired or 'vesting' under the law of the former sovereign remain valid after state succession and continue to be governed by the law of the former Sovereign applicable at the time when such private law rights originally 'vested' or were acquired ... notwithstanding the fact that the former Sovereign has been de facto replaced. In support of this proposition see the decisions of The Hague "World Court, the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of the German Settlers in Poland, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 6, Advisory Opinion No. 8, Annual Digest, 1923-1924, Case No. 37.; Sopron-Koszeg Local Railway Company Case, Lega of Nations, Official Journal, 1929, p. 1359; American Journal of International law, Vol. XXIV (1930) pp. 164-174; Annual Digest, 1929-1930, Case No. 34; E. Thalheimer v. Yugoslav State before the

Hungarian-Yugoslav Mixed Arbitral Tribunal on 6 Sept 1928, Recueil, VIII, p. 579, Annual Digest, 1927-1928, Case no. 60; State Succession (Notarial Act) Case, before the Austrian Supreme Court in Civil Matters decided 13 May 1919, Annual Digest, 19191922, Case No. 40; Occupation of Crete Case, the Greek Court of Cassation, Annual Digest, 1925-1926, Case No. 69; Heirs of the Prince Mohammed Selim v. The Government of Palestine,, Annual Digest 1935-1937, Case No. 39; Mihan Singh v. the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Annual Digest, 1954, pp. 64-66; Supreme Court of India in Virendra Singh v., State of Uttar Pardesh, Annual Digest, 1955, p. 131. Given the many separate state successions involved in the formation of the United States between Great Britain, France, Spain, the Republic of Texas, and Hawaii, this doctrine is also affirmed in the following decisions of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Perchman, 7 Pet. 51, 86-87 (1830); United States v. Chavez, 159 U. S. 453 (1895); Brownsville v. Cavazos, 100 U. S. 138, 25 L. Ed 574 (1879); United States v. Perot, 98 U. S. 428 (1879); Fremont v. United States 17 How. 542, 58 U. S. 241 (1854); United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U. S. 256 (1946) Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464, at 493 (1823); Delassus v. United States, 9 Pet. 117 at 133; United States v. the Heirs of Clarke and Atkinson, 16 Pet. 228, at 232; Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall. 308 at 312 (1871); Soulard v. United States, 4 Pert. 511 at 512 (1830); Terrett v. Taylor 9 Cranch 43 at 50 (1815);Ely v. the United Stated, 171 U. S. 220 at 223; Shapleig v. Mier, 299 U. S. 468 at 470 (1937); The same doctrine of public international law re complete survival of 'vested' private law rights upon state succession has also been affirmed in the following decision of American State courts in Miller v. Letzerich, 49 Sw2d 404, 85 A.L.R. 451 (Texas, 1932); Harris et al. v. O'Conner, 185 Sw2d 993 (Texas, 2944); Manry v. Robison et al, 56 Sw2d 438 at 444; 122 Tex. 213 (1932); Pendery v. Panhandle Refining Co, 169 SW2d 766; Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No, 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co, 4 P2d 369 (1931); Vanderslice v. Hanks, 3 California 27 at 37-38 (1852); State v. Valmont Plantations, 346 S.W.2d 853 (Texas, 1961); State v. Balli, 190 S.W.2d 71 at 99 (Texas, 1945); Luttes v. State, 289 S.W. 2d 357 (Texas 1956) and 324 S.W,. 2d 167 at 176. The invocation of the Treaty of Peace with verbiage more understandable at: Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793), clearly specifies that We The People are not Subjects, but, rather Sovereigns without subjects. The following is a compilation of various case cites with objective to make more explicit the meaning of this DIPLOMATIC PROTEST: [bolding, underlining, etc. added] SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY OF PARIS 1884

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course* of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371. [*See footnote Holder In Due Course Notes] Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violations. Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93 "History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.

Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War , 418 US 208, 232-3. We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are sovereign. Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime. Afroyim v Rusk, 387 US 253; 87 S.Ct. 1660 . In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that it is an established fact, as well as a respected and valid concept. "The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829) "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants

in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 "The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection." Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873) Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

A vast assortment of supportive reference material is available, however, I feel I have displayed a sufficient array for confirmation and clarity of my Claims. The Doctrine Of Contribution applies explicitly to Affiant, for I: a man called John-Quincy: of the family of Jones: holding the office of the people: adhere to the Ten Commandments: with full liability: in and for the judicial-district: Douglas: the county; country of Missouri: under the authority of the one living deity: King of kings, and Lord of lords: Yahweh: John-Quincy: Jones - Exiled Sovereign. *****************************************************

INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES A/K/A INTERLOCKING EQUITY TIES to establish parameters of fiduciaries The U.S. Feral Government (not a typo) is out of control!! Thomas Jefferson said in 1821: The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

President Theodore Roosevelt 1906: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today . President Woodrow Wilson: "Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." Harry S. Truman: Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. Luke 11:46 Woe unto you also, you lawyers; for you lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge: you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered. Oligarchy: Government by a few; those making up such a government lawyers! May I remind you that - failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, etc...) is a Criminal Offense? To simplify issues and bring clarity concerning duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the offending corporate STATE OF MISSOURI officials, we present the following Interlocking Directorates: 1. The first "connection" from the highest, and most potent, position is: a. 77 Stat. 630-631, P.L. 88-243 (1963) and P.L. 88-244 (1963) introduces and "makes law" providing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as Private Law enacted for the municipal District of Columbia and the United States (federal government). These laws/actions were/are expressly in force and effect on citizens of the federal government. PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630 is "AN ACT To enact the Uniform Commercial Code for the District of Columbia , and for

other purposes." This is where the uniform commercial code enters as the implied "law of the land." [SEE also, H.J. Res 778, December 10, 1963, 77 Stat 775] "It is well settled that "United States" et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871, under the name "District of Columbia"". 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62 Heritage Dictionary: Columbia (k-lmb-) n. The United States. For sake of simplicity, a "Public Law", as referenced, P.L. 88-244, is Private Law only meant for private corporate citizens, not We The People. (i) "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 AmJur 12, p.28 (ii) A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 AmJur 33, pgs. 58, 59. (iii) Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 AmJur 35, p. 60. (iv) In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979). (v) The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly 133 U.S. 21 (1890). b. It is all private law, not International law (but, may be referred to as Private International Law), and it is owned by the same people that own public law 88-243 (1968). The UCC was written and is owned by UNIDROIT. It is in the Vatican (actually, it is only about one hundred yards from the "Holy See"). (i) To properly address "public law", one must understand that it is "Private Corporate Charter" that owns the "P.L." and it is all "statutory". Public Law was converted to Public Policy in 1938 (policy = political = police). All private corporations, including governments, are under "public policy" and are to deal only with other corporations, as exemplified herein. (ii) The Private Rights of Private Man is not affected by public law, public policy, private law, or anything else, as long as, Private Man does not harm another Private Man. He is not "statutory", but Lawful.

A. "We the people have discharged any debt which may be said to exist or owed to the state/government. The governments are, presumably, indebted continually to the people, because the people [the sovereigns] presumably assented to the 1878 creation of the government corporation and because we suffer its continued existence. The continued debt owed to the people is discharged only as it continues not to violate our private rights, and when government fails in its duty to provide protection-discharge its debt to the people, it is an abandonment [delictual fault] of any and all power, authority or vestige of sovereignty which it may have otherwise possessed, and the laws remain the same, the sovereignty reverting to the people whence it came." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). B. "All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private rights Wynhammer v. People, (13 NY 378), which duty is a debt owed to its creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the de facto government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised individual owes nothing to the government." (Emphasis mine) Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. (iii) Public means: of, concerning, or affecting the common unity of the people, the Assemblage of Private Man. (iv) Private means: not available for public use, control, or participation, belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government (remember, as a corporation, the gubm't becomes no more than any other corporate "person"), not holding an official or public position. - If you're still confused, go back to 1. b. above and 2. & 4.e. below. (v) "The entire taxing and monetary systems are, hereby, placed under the U.C.C." The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, also see: Public Law 89-719, Legis. Hist., pg 3722, C.R.S. 5-1-106, U.S. V. Conrad Pub. Co., 589 F.2d 949 (1978) - being commercial in nature of admiralty Jurisdiction. [Ratification Doctrine] (vi) NOTE: Concerning private v. public via Civil Law - The civil law tradition makes a sharp distinction between private and public law. Private law includes the rules governing civil and commercial relationships such as marriage, divorce, and contractual agreements. Public law consists of matters that concern the government: constitutional law, criminal law, and administrative law. In many countries with civil law systems, two sets of courts existthose that hear public law cases and those that address matters of private law. Remember, Civil Law is opposed to Common Law.

(vii) On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "common law," in the Federal Government, "THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS" (See: Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188). (viii) The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. "This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY." (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17; also see, Federalist Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.) [SEE 1 (a) above.]

c. The U.S. pays $260,000 per year to UNIDROIT for the use of the copyrighted UCC. The International Registry is the private law of UNIDROIT. d. The Vatican Bank had owned Continental Bank, Chicago, whose sole stockholder was Walter Commings, Jr, the Chief Judge of 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. e. Chicago Board of Trade is owned by a Judge. f. All courts in the United States (corporate zone) are "for profit" corporations and listed in Dunn and Bradstreet under the heading, "Also Trades As:" (i) There is no debate that the free States of the Union once existed upon North American soil. There is no debate that the People obtained the Rights of the King as Sovereigns and Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty. There is no debate that said States of the Union, if extant, are well hidden and non-accessible and the Sovereign People are now draped with a blackened cloak of deceit, trickery, and true identity theft by those known as "persons" of corporate nature, legal fictions, creatures of pretense in mind only.

(ii) How do "they" turn a bona-fide Republic State of the Union back into a "territory" of the United States? (A) On the political side, this is how, "on the authority of the United States Supreme Court, it is the complete subjugation [to bring under control; conquer; to make subservient; enslave] of any political unit to the federal government of the United States that makes a subdivision a territory". Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486; also The Coquitlam v. United States, 163 U.S. 346. [Boys and girls, can we all say U.S.D.C.?] Under the "Buck Act," 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this "Federal area," and in Sec. 110(d): The term "State" includes any territory or possession of the United States. The Buck act affects the actions of all federal departments within the 50 states. There in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105, the federal "State" is defined (also known as), "The State of xxxxxxx." The Supreme Court says, There has been created a fictional federal "State (of) [name of state] within a state." We have numerous references to this. Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville , 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O'Hara TP School District , 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440 Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28 U.S.C. 30020(15)]. The States are sub-corporations of the Fed, this aforementioned Corporation . [See 1934, State Compact Act; Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. 101]. [Primary laws extended to Territories] by the United States was the Customs Act of July 27, 1868 [15 Stat.L. 240; Rev. Stat. of 1873-1874, 2 nd ed. Secs. 19541976, page 342], extending over the Territory the laws of the United States with reference to customs, commerce and navigation, and constituting it a customs collection district. Under this act important powers of regulation were conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury. (B) On the religious side, this is how, EXECUTIVE ORDER 13397 - Church as a Governmental Agency Gone with the stroke of a pen, as of Mach 07, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security will now utilize our nations non-profit churches as one of the

federal government's primary spying agencies. Is any further comment necessary? (C) But, how can they have access to our everyday functions to obtain control over the innocent maneuvers we must negotiate daily? But, in fact and in law, such statutes are intended to be applied to those who are here as "residents" in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment. United States v United Mine Workers of America , (1947) 67 S.Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258.

22 USC Sec. 1621 -EXPCITE- TITLE 22 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I -HEADSec. 1621. Definitions -STATUTE- For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term 'person' shall include an individual, partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United States. Clarity must be brought to the subject of State. A vast difference exists between a fiction, fable, legal entity, corporation of some body politic and the non-fiction, real and true, body of Christians also known as a state. The following is placed directly below to bring clarity to such: The State is a person, and possesses as its property one territory. As this one civil person consists of all the citizens , so its property consists of all the individual property of the citizens. It is una persona, unicum patrimonium. This unity of the person and property of the state is expressed by the Common Law maxim, that all lands were originally granted out by the sovereign [Yahweh, God, our Father, through His Son, Yahshua, the Christ], and are therefore holden, either mediately or immediately , in fee. In apprehension of [Christian and Biblical] law, the [Christian] state holds the soil of the whole territory as one estate [in Christ]. (D) And, arent they, the feral government, in reality NON EXISTANT?

Absolutely, so, let's look at United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33. - "It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause

dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only."... (E) How is the United States usurping their alleged authority?

In "the Court's" Statement of Venue (scilicet, ss) you may find written or indicated that your Plaintiff is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Though this may appear that this may be an attempt to identify The United States of America, it is fatally flawed and is, in nature, fact, and law, an attempted enlargement, by means of fictions, of your non-existent granted powers and authorities. In a landmark, time honored, never disputed, and still distinguished case we learn: The proper jurisdiction of the courts of Common Law is of things done within the bodies of counties, and its further enlargements, by means of fictions, can be considered only as ingenious subterfuges and devices, to amplify their powers.

Justice Story; 1815 De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; 7 Fed. Cas. 418; Case No. 1,776 (Reaffirmed 78 U.S. 1 to 396 U.S. 215). We are bringing to your attention, at this time, the second part of this indisputable political doctrine. In order to clarify this statement, we have taken the liberty of noticing synonyms to those words that may not be easily understood: (Common-Language Clarification) and its further enlargements (expansions), by means of fictions (imaginary/legal assumptions), can be considered only as ingenious (clever) subterfuges (concealments) and devices (schemes), to amplify (exaggerate) their powers. (iii) Whoever said the police are there to protect and to serve? I said that; theyre here to protect the political establishment from knowledgeable people and to serve the public in the same way that a farmer gets his cow serviced to produce another calf. Are they managing the herd? You bet they are. 23 CFR PART 1250 - 40% TO
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION PARTICIPATION IN STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

40% Benefit to Local-Reg

Part 1250 gives 40 percent benefit to local police action through political subdivision participation in State highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402 (b)(1)(C). 1250.4(b) When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended by a political subdivision, such expenditures are clearly part of the local share. [Note: previous to this it was stated that the Federal funds dispersed are at least 40%.] Well, so much for unbiased police. (iv) The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v Devito, 686 F2d 616. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962): If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity. Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964): "Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution ." g. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54) h. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493). i. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493). j. The Popes laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44). k. America is a British Colony. (the UNITED STATES is a CORPORATION, not a land mass, and it existed before the revolutionary war and the British troops did not leave until 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c. v. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.). 28 USC 3002(15)(A): "United States" means a Federal corporation.

l. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213). The United States or District of Columbia is owned by the Vatican Bank, lock stock and barrel, according to Tupper Sausseys archival research. m. 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209); see also Public Law 88-243 and 88-244 (December 1963). n. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80). Actually, it was the Rothschild banks the Rothschild banks of England financed the North, - the Rothschild banks of France financed the South. At that time, the King of England was also the King of France. o. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that "New York City was the capital of the World" and he was correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)). p. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816). SEE: Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of the United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that the "Agreement" regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record - Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in the first instant. q. The IRS is an Agency of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) not the U.S. Government. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.). See also: Bretton Woods Agreement, as amended. r. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United States government, even though the "US Government" held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang, 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d 1239) ["They are also corportions.] s. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2)).

t. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN. (Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.) u. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. ( Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.). v. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826) w. The U.S. has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654). x. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288) y. There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. ( FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178). (i) And, do the courts enforce laws, or codes? Answer: Code is supreme. Where both the code and general principles are available, the former should always be considered and applied if applicable. By legislative declaration the code is the law, and if general principles appear inconsistent, they must be considered displaced under AS 45.05.006. Moreover, even where inconsistency does not exist, the code must be regarded as supreme; general principles even when consistent with the code are merely supplementary. Prince v. LeVan, 486 P.2d 959, 9 UCC Rep.Serv. 367 (1971). Kelly v. Miller, 575 P.2d 1221, 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 632 (1978) (ii) But, are judicial courts necessary? Answer: The particular need for making the judiciary independent was elaborately pointed out by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 78, from which we excerpt the following: "The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment." WE HAVE NOT HAD THIS BALANCE OF POWER FOR A VERY LONG TIME!!

(iii) The ideal of checks and balances within government structure have long been a thing of the past. The Reconstruction Acts took away the Lawful Standing, the Lawful Capacity, from the Citizens and changed their Lawful Standing to Legal Status, from ELECTORS in a THREE BRANCH GOVERNMENT as they were in Original Jurisdiction, to REGISTERED VOTERS in a TWO BRANCH GOVERNMENT. Want proof? Go to your local City Clerk and ask for a CERTIFIED COPY of your City Charter in any State, or your local County Clerk for a CERTIFIED COPY of your County Charter in any State. You will discover that ALL cities and counties in your State have only two branches, the Executive and Legislative. There is no Judicial Branch!! The Judicial Districts were all abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34 th Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1860, reviewing the Act of the 34 th Congress, ordered ALL the States in existence at that time to close down all the Courts of law and all courts complied in 1860. None of the Courts of any State are created by the Constitution of their State. Every Court, from top to bottom, the justice of the peace courts, the police courts, the municipal courts, the district courts and the circuit courts are ALL Statutory Courts created by Statutes which were enacted by the Legislature and in fact, and law, merely Administrative Agencies and only have the authority conferred by Statute. z. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178). (i) Modes of enforcement are erratic and arbitrary, a ground for prosecution is anybody's guess, and the operation in the law is shrouded in mystery. In most any issue at hand we might suggest the following: "This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it " fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss , 347 U.S. 612, 617, and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions . Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242." When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and that the improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say the least, not happy. More than once have judges of a court been indirectly reminded that they too are taxpayers.

No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this commonwealth the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his returns. Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167 (1965). (ii) Dear Friends: this all leads to domestic terrorism! Please follow: 18 USC 2331. - Definitions. As used in this chapter (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; aa. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502). bb. We (as corporate entities) own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our children.(Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten , 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481). cc. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037). dd. You (as corporate entities) can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah , 14 Georgia 438, 520) That's why I rely on YOUR sworn Oath to keep my Rights as "secured by the Constitution". ee. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia , 477. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247. However, please be mindful that, it is not until you get to Article 10 (PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630) Construction with other laws that you begin to see that the laws of the Republic were left in place in Section 28:10-104; Laws not repealed. And, remember, in UCC 1-103.6 it clearly states that all is to be done in accordance with the Common Law, so, remedy is available, although hidden. This is how "they" brought in all of the Uniform Laws through D. C. and because all of the

states are subdivisions with interlocking directorates, all are simply municipal corporations of D.C., and the D.C. code applies - if you are a corporation. Ahhh, but, how does the court system see this? Many illustrations could be included, but, this document does not have room. I will take only the space for one small example: In 1976 our court system (what was left of it) was flushed away. Senate Bill 94-204 deals with the court system and Senate Bill 94-381 deals with Public Law. These solidified changes in all operations of law by utilizing the words "construe and construct". Slight deviations transfer meaning of words to fit their dolus agenda, such as, "in" changed to "at", "at law" v. "in law". Lawyers, judges, and the "court system" are now allowed to change any word they wish to mean any thing they want. The "law" now means whatever they choose it to mean. It is no longer a court of "law", but a court of "construe and construct". Lawyers are the guilty culprits that make these devious changes. Often their answers will reflect such changes. They intentionally misquote past cases, or other issues, as facts by making such changes. Illegal? Not according to the above Senate Bills. So, be aware, "they" can construe "their" copyrighted laws any way they wish to fit the situation for their own betterment; and, you have no say about it. Can you use the same copyrighted codes, laws, statutes, and regulations against them? Not unless you have a license from the BAR. You will be in violation of copyright infringement and punishment is mandatory. Learn this - there is NO LAW in this nation, or the world, for that matter. There is ONLY contract law. And, the only Bill of Rights the "courts" are required to take cognizance of is the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th. Fair nuff? Consider the following fact of law, which shall be reiterated further in this document: "Judicial Notice" was commanded in the case of Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, where the Supreme Court ruled that particular case was the last time it would address "official definitions" of the term "United States", affirming that there are two (2) distinctly different United States with two (2) opposite forms of governments, both having the same congress. [Opposite means opposing!!] 2. All governments, and every agency thereof, are corporations, obtaining any jurisdictions from their Charters, as per: Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People

 Supreme Court of the United States 1795 a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them ." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States 1795 -----; and, b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities (remember, although all government agents and employees are 14th Amendment citizens, this Sovereign is not);

(i) The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 - "A 'citizen of the United States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4." and,

c. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773, "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"", and, d. "This State" and "this county" and all "municipalities" are controlled by 42 USC IT IS ALL IN TITLE 42, SECTION 3711 THROUGH 3796, This shows that every agency involved in criminal cases receives Feral funds. Find the State code and you should find a State Agency that compares to the Coordinating Council. These are not the only agencies that grant federal funds into the States. This is only the beginning: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 4 PARTS: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ALL OF THESE 4 DEPT. ARE HEADED BY AN ASSISTANT U.S. AG. WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. HOW IS THAT FOR A MILITARY SET UP?

Criminal justice system has ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF: (a) State highway patrol, county sheriff, municipal and township police, and all other enforcement agencies. (b) the court of appeals, courts of common pleas, municipal courts, county courts, and mayors courts when dealing with criminal cases. (C) prosecuting attorneys, city directors of law, jails and on and on. Title 42 USC sec. 3791(a) States means any State of the US, DC, commonwealth Puerto Rico, Units of Local Government means any city, county, township, parish, village or other general purpose subdivision of a State. Title 42 sec. 3732 reads The State Coordinating Council has a Director appointed by the Governor. His duties are full federal control over the States. Start to understand who you are really up against. Find the flow of money. Title 42 sec. 3732 reads: (a) There is established within the Dept. of Justice, under the general authority of the AG, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (Bureau) (b) The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, and with the advice and consent of the Senate - - - The Director shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall report to the AG, through the Asst. AG WOULD THIS NOT LEAD YOU TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS? (1) The name, and address of the Director per Title 42 @ 3732 (2) Certified copy of Oath (3) Certified copy of bond or insurance that covers his actions (4) Copy of contracts awarded that award money to the State (5) The reports the AG made that reflect that money Once you establish that the courts, prosecutors, public defenders, auto registration, are all claiming federal money for their operations then they commit fraud in the procedures they use, it is actionable under FALSE CLAIMS ACT. For some interesting reading get a copy of Title 4 USC and take careful notice of the section "States". Also, Term state as used in rules providing when a state may appeal in a criminal case is all inclusive and intended to include not only the state but its political subdivisions, counties and cities. Spokane County v. Gifford, 9 Wash.App. 541, 513 P.2d 301, 302. Federal Government

is a state bound by all of provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Enright v. U. S., D.C.N.Y., 437 F.Supp, 580 581. Foreign State. A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered foreign to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. ...

3. An issue declared, but not rebutted, stands as Truth in Law (thus, this proper rebuttal): a. All "U.S. citizens" were classified as "Enemies of the State" as made more explicit in our "EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", in which we demonstrated that, pursuant to Public Law 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976), the state of national emergency has been officially terminated by the United States Congress, and accordingly, any and all authorities which might have permitted Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction ("Star Chambers") to exist in American federal courts were also effectively terminated by said Public Law [See 42 U.S.C. 1986], and explicitly brought forward in EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A " nom de guerre", with an additional eight (8) Points. For brevity, only one point will be displayed: Point 063 A. Affiant has no record or evidence to indicate that Affiant is a combatant enemy of the State, or that Affiant is a belligerent of the government, as per; article by Chuck Morse, Is the National Emergency of FDR Still In Place? that: This was a classic example of sleight of hand. In fact, Congress exempted all laws, based on the emergency of 1933 that were already in place. Rather than being based on the authority of the President under a national emergency these federal laws have now been codified as a permanent part of the U.S. Federal Code. Included among the codified laws would be Section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which classifies the American citizen as an enemy of the government. Therefore, although the national emergency technically ended on September 14, 1976, when the 93rd Congress passed H.R. 3884, the National Emergencies Termination Act (50 USC 1601, Public Law 94-412), because the last paragraph said that it didnt apply to any authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended, the classification of a United States citizen still stands as enemy of the government, Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant should maintain any association with the label, definition, or designation of a US citizen, or any similar appellation. b. Under Act of Congress, May 31, 1878, c. 146, 20 Stat. 87, 31 U.S.C.A. 404, which enacts that notes of the United States, issued during the war of the Rebellion, under acts of congress declared them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, and since the close of the war redeemed and paid in gold coin at the treasury, shall be reissued and kept in circulation, is constitutional, and notes so reissued are a legal tender.

This idea supports that, under emergency - the War of Rebellion (Civil War), the printing of Notes is Constitutional. Of course in the actual theater of war, the Constitution is suspended, and some of the Executive Orders of the War Between the States are still in full force and effect. So, bear in mind that: (1) the "Emergency War Powers Act" is in full force and effect; and, (2) though "notes" are not Lawful Money, they are declared "legal tender"; and, (3) all U.S. citizens are declared as "enemies of the government"; and, (4) all "legal currency. tender" (notes of the Federal Reserve) is defined as US

4. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., page 1420, "A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public authority, and the other by mere private persons." a. We have determined that a "mixed war" is a "Commercial War"; and, a "public authority" exercises "Private Law"; to the benefit of corporate strategy, which is not unlawful if not exercised against a "Private Person", or "Private Man". b. When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it exists solely by virtue of the charter - compact - constitution that created it. The Constitution does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F. Supp. 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others). In Noah Webster's dictionaries, pre 1969, in the abbreviation section you will find U.S.C. defined as United States of Colombia. And, then in the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of Columbia you will find: Columbia, the United States. This notation is to "de-fuse" any assumption/presumption that this Affiant is "subject to", or a "citizen of" any such extension/trespass against the mind, will, and conscience of Affiant, within, or without, the United States, onshore, or offshore. c. Why were the post offices in Washington, D.C. placed under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury??? 72d Congress Sess. II CHS. 160-162

MARCH 1, 1933 [CHAPTER 162]

March 1, 1933 [H.R. 14401.]

[Public, No. 405.] Washington City post office. Jurisdiction, etc. of, placed under the Secretary of the Treasury. Vol. 30 P. 614. U.S.C., p. 1306 AN ACT To provide for placing the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Washington City post office in the Secretary of the Treasury. [and, every post office with "zip" codes] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40, sec. 285), is hereby amended to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the Washington City post office and the additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and control. Approved, March 1, 1933.

d. The U.S. Attorney General is the "permanent member" to the Secretariat of the Interpol Operation, and the Secretary of Treasury the "alternate permanent member." Under Article 30 of the "Constitution and General Regulation of Interpol, "22 USC 263(a), the agents are required to renounce their allegiance to their respective countries and expatriate. Consequently, ALL "public servants," officials, Congressmen politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement personnel, the States and their various agencies, are express agents of the Foreign Principals who have bankrupted and stolen the United States (of America) through the paper money banking swindle and other frauds and treacheries. And, why is the Secretary of the Treasury also known as the US Governor for the International Monetary Fund? e. And, how are all the "States" linked to the Feral Gubm't? (i) All states in the Union were reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, hence creating a new (and, different/alternate) union of American STATES. UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, 3002(15)(A), basically reiterates that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. What was not said in 1871, but was implicit, was what is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(B) & (C): That all departments of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION are part of the corporation. The "Corporation" and its' subsidiaries have suffered at least three bankruptcies.

Much later (Conference of Governors, 1945) the legal fictions called "State of YOUR STATE" confirmed and "pledged" what was not theirs to pledge, the sweat, labor, engineering, technology, and future children of We The People, to support the indebted legal fiction, "UNITED STATES". The full "Changing of the Guard" (state name change status) was accomplished in, I think, 1968. (ii) The other united States is the Continental united States. This is the country founded by the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States (actually, Canada was part of the original charter). The original, organic Constitution had no title, the Preamble was the "title". When the "constitution" was used as the corporate charter for the Act of February 21, 1781, it was given a "title", Constitution of the United States of America, and that IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, as in the NAME of a vessel. Please note the distinct difference and meaning in the two words "of" and "for". Of means something belongs to something, or someone, else "Constitution of (belonging to, possession) the United States of America", v. "Constitution for (the seating of a Tribunal, seating of judgment) the United States of America". So, what difference does it make if they changed one tiny little word? You'd better learn. If you don't want to learn, go back to sleep - I apologize whenever I disturb any of the "pajama people". f. And, how did the International Bankers become the "receivers in bankruptcy", but first, remember, the only ones put at risk are the ones that turned in their gold to the "Securities Intermediaries! (So, how can "they" rightly claim the position of "receivers of the bankruptcy"??) (i) Please observe the "sleight of hand" as the International Bankers slip in to "assume" the position of "Creditor", without contributing any money, whatsoever; pay special attention to the fact that there is a "statutory" pledge and they assumed position as receiver: Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt. It says, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me], as the net public debt. Title 18 Sect. 8 defines ''obligation of the United States'' to include all certificates of indebtedness ..drawn upon authorized officers of the United

States issued under any Act of Congress, which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, And of course includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its issuance as Public Policy in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of the UNITED STATES. (ii) We must get more specific to unravel the threads of this web of deceit. In the 14th Amendment (which all "public" gubm't employees are party to) it plainly states: The validity of the public debt... ...shall not be questioned, and further states, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [non14th Amendment citizens], as the NET public debt. So, "public debt" is the charges against me by the several and many corporations that "service" me (government and non-government, but all corporate), and the "net public debt" is the interest due or accrued, which is to be returned to the source, (me) as Equity for my losses incurred by supporting the Beast (turning in the Lawful Money - Gold). Referenced to 14th Amendment, Section 4. I must reiterate that it is the 14th Amendment citizen and the Treasury Department that is not to question "The validity of the public debt..." (...shall not be questioned). (iii) The question of "Communal Debt" arises and must be answered to clarify the issues. The Communal Debt was, and is, the debt of the Corporation(s), in particular, governments and the expense of running the same. Since the de jure governments are in position, but no offices are filled, there can be no expenses for the same. The de facto institutions of government have no "negative" expenses, as they hire only qualified pirates and thieves. (iv) The next question that must be addressed is that of "Communal Credit". Understand this, there was, and is, no Communal Credit. It was the Private Man under duress, coercion, threat of imprisonment, loss of life, etc., that delivered his gold to the thieves, it was not the corporate entities that turned in the gold. (v) I am convinced that there is a one million dollar ($1,000,000) limitation on each occurrence that I may make "request for discharge" against the net public debt: Title 26 USC section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return)."

(vi) I must address the issue of what, or how much, in the "form of money" was created to bring about this majestic public debt. First, let me state that "money" is the ONLY creation of mankind. Next, please be informed that only the debt money is created, never the interest. And, you can not pay a debt instrument with a debt instrument (a "bill" with a Federal Reserve Note), you can only discharge the debt - set it off into the future, so the debt accrues and climbs to a higher level with each use. Now, in reference to (ii) above stating that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [non-14th Amendment citizens], as the NET public debt, when you and I direct the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge, or setoff, our (non 14th Amendment citizen) debts, it is the accrued interest returning to its' source, and reducing the public debt in the process. 5. We have studied, in depth, the Trading With The Enemies Act, TWEA T 50 APPENDIX App., and found the most recent edit of Title 50a of the US Code was released by the Law Revision Counsel - LRC - (http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on 2007-02-13 .. .and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Fri Feb 16 04:33:56 2007. Therefore, our information seems to be most current. a. We have determined that Sections 7, 9, and 16 of TWEA in Title 50 APPENDIX App. provides us with remedy and recourse; and, under said document, we confirm: (i) We have administered our Claims under Oath; and, (ii) All Claims are ONLY against Corporations; and, (iii) All said Corporations are subject to the Secretary of State, Missouri State, The United States of America. b. In the Nature of Declaration, we solemnly state: (i) We are NOT Austrian or Hungarian nationals. We are NOT of Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Austria-Hungary ancestry. (ii) We ARE Missouri Nationals, Missourians, of Scottish, Irish, British, and an indeterminate percentage of American Cherokee and other American Indians lineage. All

of our parents were of similar percentage of European and Indian stock. We exercise Right of Claim as Remaindermen and heir to all assets belonging to our natural parents. (iii) Our declaration of citizenship (pursuant to Trading With Enemy Act, TWEA) is upon the land as Missourians (not within any corporate entity). (iv) Our proper political standing is established in International law, the law of nations and the treaty of nations, which guarantees every man the right to make political self determination, which may vary from time to time. We are properly seated in Office of We The People. c. TWEA states that; after one has proper standing, and has established a relationship with the Comptroller, they have a duty to protect me. They are bonded to do so and they have taken an oath to do so. You have been properly Noticed of: (i) My declaration of citizenship was made known for this last time in Section 5, b, (iii) above. (ii) Notice has been served on the original registrars, being, they are the original fiduciary, that they, as per; UCC 1 and UCC 3 filings mentioned previously to effectively function to alleviate the distresses and eliminate the Breach of the Peace, which is the Highest Crime under International Law. 6. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856): a. CONUSANCE, CLAIM OF, English law. This is defined: (i) to be an intervention by a third person, demanding judicature in the cause against the plaintiff, who has chosen to commence his action out of claimant's court. 2 Wilson's R. 409. (ii) It is a question of jurisdiction between the two courts Fortesc. R. 157; 5 Vin. Abr. 588; and not between the plaintiff and defendant, as in the case of plea to the jurisdiction, and therefore it must be demanded by the party entitled to conusance, or by his representative, and not by the defendant or his attorney. Id. ibid. A plea to the jurisdiction must be pleaded in person , but a claim of conusance may be made by attorney. 1 Chit. Pl. 403. (iii) There are three sorts of conusance. 1. Tentere placita, which does not oust another court of its jurisdiction, but only creates a concurrent one. 2. Cognitio placitorum, when the plea is commenced in one court, of which conusance belongs to another. 3. A

conusance of exclusive jurisdiction; as that no other court shall hold pica, &c. Hard. 509 Bac. Ab. Courts. b. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1531 says, "In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it." c. In Erie Rail Road v- Thompkins (1938), the U.S Supreme Court Ruled: The United States is a Bankrupt Nation in Receivership to this Nations Creditors; And, All Law is Commerce! Please see EXHIBIT - Commercial Crimes. 19 C.J.S. Sections 883, 884 of Chapter XVIII, Foreign Corporations follows in its entirety: 19 C.J.S. Section 883, page 541, XVIII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS Definition and General Considerations A foreign corporation is one that derives it existence solely from the laws of another state, government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in statutes, to designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another state or a corporation created by or under the laws of a foreign country. At common law, a corporation may be deemed a person, and statutes providing that corporations shall be deemed persons include foreign corporations. Generally, the status of a foreign corporation as either foreign or domestic is determined solely by the place of its origin, without reference to the residence of its stockholders, or incorporators, or the place where the business is transacted. However, by express enactment, a corporation, a majority of whose stock is held by aliens, is, for some purposes, deemed to be a foreign corporation. A domestic corporation does not become a foreign corporation merely by accepting from another state a grant of the right to own property and to transact business in such other state. Federal Corporations A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a foreign corporation. The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. Section 884. Status

A corporation exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of law, and where that law ceases to operate, the corporation can have no existence. A state cannot impose one of its artificial creatures on another sovereignty nor confer on its corporators powers which they can lawfully exercise beyond its jurisdiction . Rather, it must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.

d. And, of course the "Fed" makes grants to the States - It all Starts Here: (i) TITLE 49 Sec. 31102. - Grants to States (and, the borrower is slave to the lender) (ii) Commercial Vehicle Programs - All law is "commerce", with commercial penalties. (iii) "Your" driver license is a commercial permit. (And, it is only good for "commercial vehicles") 7. BE INFORMED, because of Interlocking Directorates of many agencies, offices, and governmental employees working in concert and collusion, the resultant effect, due to the usurpation of authority, excess of jurisdiction, or lack of all jurisdiction, not granted by the Lawful Man, is the experiencing of major pains and penalties and other crippling injuries, as per: a. While, on its face, "executive measures" with the red and blue lights may seem to be a way to deter crime, implementing statutes actually gives incentives to judges, police officers and district attorneys to rope as many people into the court process as possible. Like any other commission structure, it is a numbers game. The higher the number of defendants created, the higher the payout for the police officer, the judge, and the District Attorney. [SEE 1997 Court Funding Act] b. Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by Government officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared: "Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.

For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the law, the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should resolutely set its face." c. McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001) "government officials in general, and police officers in particular , may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone who takes an oath of office knows - or should know - that much." d. "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100. e. 18 USC 31, (6) Motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. f. 18 USC 31, (10) Used for commercial purposes.--- The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge , or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. As the majority states, failure to verify the signature of the arresting officer on the Uniform Violations Complaint precluded the district court from being vested with subject matter jurisdiction and from being empowered to act. Therefore, all proceedings in the trial court are rendered void. Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 (Okl. Cr. 1990). g. "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73).

h. The Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle even for limited purposes of questioning its occupants unless the police officer has a founded suspicion of criminal conduct . U.S. V. Ramirez & Sandoval, 872 F2d. 1392. i. Harassment by threat of fraudulent proceedings prohibited: Source: Statute at Large 1997, ch 45, 10; Statute at Large 2005, ch 120, 228. (Text of section effective July 1, 2006) Harassment by threat of fraudulent legal proceedings or liens prohibited--Misdemeanor--Subsequent violation felony. Any person who harasses any other person by sending or delivering, or causing to be sent or delivered, any letter, paper, document, notice of intent to bring suit, or other notice or demand that simulates any form of court or legal process and that threatens the other person, directly or indirectly, with incarceration, monetary fines, or penalties, or with the imposition of a counterfeit lien on the real or personal property of the other person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. Lack of belief in the jurisdiction or authority of the state or of the United States is no defense to a prosecution under this section. "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352. j. After all the above issues are brought into the light of Truth, there is but ONE JUDGMENT CALL for those at ground, grass roots, level and that is to STOP THE PIRATES AT "CRUISER" LEVEL. Educate them as best you can. Yes, you can starve the corporate beast. Convert them one by one. (Just bear in mind that a snake is a snake. When in doubt, ask yourself how many of your family that you love have been destroyed by an "extra close shave - the sheering of the Sheeple." How many of your paychecks have gone to the Beast and how many of your homes have gone to the international bankers thru fraud and deceit?) If you do not comprehend that every patrol vehicle is a Pirate Cruiser, then, go back and read the above until you do. Im not saying that all pirates are bad. Most pirates are nothing more than privateers contracted to the Crown. Most are just not informed. Many actually believe they are doing a service for the community. Just remember, if you have a cow and you want a calf, you call a farmer with a bull to service your cow. Point clear?

8. NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL - NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT.

Because of Interlocking Directorates and networking computerized files, you are charged with the responsibilities, duties, and directives to: a. Assure that all related agents/agencies receive verification of this documentation, including, but not limited to: (i) Comptroller of the Bankruptcy, because of the affect on the banking system (ii) Secretary of State, United States (iii) Commissioner of IRS, because of the effect on his records (iv) U.S. Attorney General (v) Associate U.S. Attorney General (vi) Chief Counsel of the Office of Foreign Asset Control pursuant to 40 Stat 411 b. Accomplish the task of: (i) Removal of our Christian Appellations, listed above, from Enemy of the State database (ii) Placing our Diplomatic Standing in National Crime Information System presented explicitly in the National Crime Information Center . BOTTOM LINE: A Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, U.S. v. Cheek. "Biblical Law at "Common Law" supersedes all laws, and "Christianity is custom, custom is Law." Robin v. Hardaway 1790.

Habakuk, chapter 2 NASV: Then the Lord answered me and said, "Record the vision, and inscribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run. For it is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay Behold the proud one, his soul is not right within him

Will not all of these take up a taunt-song against him, even mockery and insinuations against him, and say, 'Woe to him who increases what is not his -- for how long -- and makes himself rich with loans? Will not your creditors rise up suddenly, and those who collect from you awaken? Indeed, you will become plunder for them. Because you have looted many nations, all the remainder

[remnant] of the peoples will loot you -- because of human bloodshed and violence done to the land, to the town and all its inhabitants."

**********************************************************

14. TO: Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer of the United States, hereinafter Treasurer Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220

LETTER ROGATORY, ENTITLEMENT ORDER, AND PAYMENT ORDER

This Letter Rogatory, Entitlement Order, and Payment Order is presented by John-Quincy: Jones, seated in Office of We The People, looking to the highest known Person in venue of the Treasury Department of the United States government, Rosa Gumataotao Rios, requesting that Rosa Gumataotao Rios, examine the contents of the attached package, make any minor adjustments to the verbiage that may be necessary keeping the "spirit" of the intent unchanged, and notify me if any major changes are necessary. I am in hopes that this package will suffice to accomplish the desired goals of bringing equity to this Private Man and assisting the operations of United States government by providing deposits and other support to the administration of said government to diminish the national debt. I, John-Quincy: Jones, Entitlement Holder, do hereby, by way of this communication appoint Rosa Gumataotao Rios in Treasurers commercial capacity as Securities Intermediary to process the annexed Entitlement Order under this reduced-to-writing instruction as an effective Payment Order. Points and Authorities: UCC 8-102(7), UCC 4-105, 12 CFR 229.2, 12 CFR 210.2, 12 USC 1813(1)(A), Blacks 5th page 133, UCC 8-501 through 511, UCC 3-105(a), UCC 8-102(8), UCC 8102(a)(15)(iii). Your assistance is requested to further expedite the desired intent of this package and is deeply appreciated.

EXHIBIT H

MEMORANDUM OF RECORD

TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT This Testamentary Affidavit is prepared in accordance for use under the authority of and in accordance with the "Convention de la hay, 5 Octobre, 1961," and for evidentiary purposes, Federal and State under the authority of and in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, Rule 902, to establish "Selfauthenticating evidence under Seal."

VERIFIED OATH PURGATORY (A.K.A. Testamentary Affidavit) Bouviers Law Dictionary: Oath Purgatory, A purgatory oath is one by which one destroys the presumptions which were against him, for his is then said to purge himself, when he removes the suspicions which were against him; as, when a man is in contempt for not attending court as a witness, he may purge himself of the contempt, by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse.

To whom these presents shall come, BE INFORMED! The undersigned, Affiant, sui juris, heretofore having properly identified Himself to be a native born Natural American Free Inhabitants, propagated from Lawful Wedlock, a Legitimate Born Child (not a natural born child having a/any government for a father), jus soli, bearing true faith and allegiance thereto; a sovereign elector inhabiting The Missouri Republic, enjoying the, "right of soil," "right of property," "right of preemption," right of exemption," and all other Rights Unalienable (Rights Not In A Lien-Able Position), as publicly published and thus declared nunc pro tunc, and by virtue of the appertaining thereto, to wit: I specifically deny that I have granted, donated or given any legal title to any purported, implied, resulting, charitable or other trust administered by the UNITED STATES, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or the STATE OF MISSOURI. I further specifically deny that I ever had or have any intent to create a cestui que trust, whereby John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, is settlor, donor, or grantor of any res to which a trust wherein JOHN Q. JONES, the Vessel, is a beneficiary having a territorial relationship with UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or STATE OF MISSOURI. I specifically deny that I ever had, or now have, intent to pledge, gift, assign, act as settler, donor or grantor of any res, which would attach to my children, my biological property gifted to me by the Creator, as subject to condition precedent, thereby John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, is free born upon the soil of the Nation of Missouri. I specifically deny that there is any law that can compel me to accept or assign liabilities imposed by the compelled use of a legal personality; and, I specifically claim ownership and right to use of my own properties, my own commercial vehicles and devices and my own natural amenities from whatever resource derived.

EXPLICIT Corporate and citizen denial Due to the convoluted, distorted, mis-informed, deceptive, and war-like attributes of Legislated Aggression against Claimant/Grantor and other People upon the Soil of North America, Grantor

explicitly denies being a corporation or a citizen of any corporate agency or activity and Grantor vehemently rebuts any presumption/assumption that is part and/or parcel to any confusion of citizenry. There are three different and distinct forms of the United States as revealed by this case law: The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context. Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) & United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 336 336 (1818) The issues of this instant matter IS that Claimant/Grantor is NOT a citizen of any corporate structure; the issues are NOT as to whether there are three different "United States" operating within the same geographical area, and one "United States" operating outside the Constitution over its own territory (in which it has citizens belonging to said "United States"), were settled in 1901 by the Supreme Court in the cases of De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes supra, Justice Harlan dissented as follows: "The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise." [Downes supra, page 380, emphasis added]

This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, with citizens of the "United States" belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, wherein that Court affirmed, at page 305, that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union, quoting Downes supra and De Lima supra; that, under 4:3:2, the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and the citizens of the "United States" residing therein. "In its governmental or public character, it represents the state, while in the other it is a mere private corporation. As a political institution, the municipality occupies a different position, and is subject to different liabilities from those which are imposed upon the private corporation. But because these two characters are united in the same legal entity , it does not follow that the shield which covers the political equally protects the private corporation ." STRAND v. STATE., 16 Wn.(2d) 107, 116 (January 6, 1943). All Federal Agents/Agencies, Bureaus, Departments, and all Courts and their officers have failed to state which United States they represent, since they can represent only one, and its under Federal Debt Collection Procedure, as a corporation, the United States, Inc., and its satellite corporations sometimes referred to as STATE OF XXXXXX, have no jurisdiction over Claimant/Grantor, an American national and a belligerent claimant. Claimant/Grantor hereby asserts the right of immunity inherent in the 11th amendment: The judicial power shall not be

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens of any Foreign State . Of a subordinate nature adding confusion to conflict there are two (2) separate and distinct national governments and a federal government;

A national government is the government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. 6 Ohio St. 342, 1856 WL 59 (Ohio)

There is a circus of conflicting deceitful codes that act as the operating procedures of the FEDERAL CORPORATION: the United States. Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28 U.S.C. 30020(15)]. The States are sub-corporations of the Federal United States, the aforementioned Corporation. [See 1934, State Compact Act; Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. 101].

Claim of Status Free Inhabitant Grantor claims the status of free inhabitant (rather than a superficial citizen) of the United States under Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 Article IV. The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation as the first constitution* of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. *Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and Americas Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 131 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3 (noting that "Madison, along with other Americans clearly understood" the Articles of Confederation "to be the first federal Constitution.") Government information (Library of Congress) may be only superficially true. The Library of Congress version of what happened to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is the official explanation of why the un-informed populace has no other choice than to be a citizen of the United States. As the national library for the United States, the Library of Congress cannot

claim the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 have been repealed, as there is simply be no documentary evidence of that or the "repealed" word would have been used. Many say that Federal and State governments would like to see the Articles of Confederation November 15, 1777 permanently removed from the Organic Laws of the United States America, but it cannot happen, as the Articles of Confederation is the only real source government power, which is exercised by the enactment of written law. Unwritten law applies everyone, but written law only applies to government and its citizens. The Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 limited government in America. I reiterate, Grantor claims the status of free inhabitant. THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION OF NOVEMBER 15, 1777 WERE ONLY REPLACED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. of of of to

CONCLUSION Grantor chooses the Law Common as handed down through the generations and documented in the Holy Writ, as evidenced elsewhere within these annexed documents and claims exemption from arrest for, both, Himself and his various properties (including, but not limited to Grantors Exchangeable Energy in the form of Currency), as per: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

********************** EXHIBIT F

DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER TO TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section 1), is a Binding Agreement to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee. The Presidents oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract that the President (executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a constitutional oath. This supporting document is in reference to a Pre-existing Contract known as a Certificate of Live Birth, to wit: 1. A person (corporate United States) gives value (certificated security = birth certificate) for rights (to create money on the signature of the man = borrow from the people) as security (promise not to deny or disparage rights of the people) for satisfaction (acknowledgement of obligation to people) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value ( signature on application for birth certificate) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction (distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 3. A person (a state, i.e., Missouri, etc.) gives value ( Constitution) for rights (to be recognized internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction (acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay international creditors). 4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value ( Article VI oath) for rights (to hold an office) as security (promise to support this constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (peoples beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 5. A person (a state, i.e., Missouri, etc.) gives value ( office in the federal government) for rights (to be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to abide by terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a preexisting claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy). 6. A person (President) gives value ( Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (peoples beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

Make a note of this The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath, is the ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate Certificated Security). It is the holder who acquires a security interest in the instrument, whereupon, I ACCEPT the instrument. It is not the issuer who has the security interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability.

16 CJS Constitutional Law 229, Rights of, and Accounting by, Trustees and Guardians; Rights acquired by trustees under a private, active trust are vested, but the rights of trustees who are merely public officials exercising public functions or who are naked trustees of a passive trust are not vested. A guardian has no vested right to be governed by the law in force at the time of his appointment and qualification. [emphasis added] And, Further: As per: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371 "As the use of private corporate commercial paper, debt currency or securities is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." And, as per: Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York , 689 F.Supp. 93 Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violations. And, as per: Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C.- So. Dist. CA. "History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government."

And, as per: Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War , 418 US 208, 232-3. We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are

sovereign. Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.

And, as per: Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."

And, as per: CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

And, as per: Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

************************** EXHIBIT G - Parson

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) Sir William Blackstone A PARSON, persona ecclesiae, is one that has full possession of all the rights of a parochial church. He is called parson, persona, because by his person the church, which is an invisible body, is represented; and he is in himself a body corporate, in order to protect and defend the rights of the church (which he personates) by a perpetual succession. A man can possess the rights of a church through the fiction known as " artificial corporate personality" that is, designating the man a corporation sole. In the beginning as explained by Blackstone, in exchange for the spiritual care of the inhabitants, the parson was compensated with the assets of the church which is in essence the vesting in him of the church's property rights. Now in order for these property rights to be available for the next parson for compensation, the rights could not be vested in

the man in his "natural person" capacity for upon his death these rights might descend to his heirs and therefore the rights of the church was vested in him in the capacity of a [corporation sole]. By incorporating the parson and his successors a corporation sole, "all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved entire to the successor: for the present incumbent, and his predecessor who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and the same person; and what was given to the one was given to the other also." "At the original endowment of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish, were vested in the then parson by the bounty of the donor, as a temporal recompense to him for his spiritual care of the inhabitants, and with intent that the same emoluments should ever afterwards continue as a recompense for the same care. But how was this to be effected? The freehold was vested in the parson; and, if we supposed it vested in his natural capacity, on his death it might descend to his heir, and would be liable to his debts and incumbrances: or, at best, the heir might be compellable, at some trouble and expense, to convey these rights to the succeeding incumbent. The law therefore has wisely ordained, that the parson quatenus parson, shall never die, any more than the king ; by making him and his successors a corporation. By which means all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved entire to the successor: for the present incumbent, and his predecessor who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and the same person; and what was given to the one was given to the other also." "Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who are incorporated by law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the king is a sole corporation: so is a bishop: so are some deans, and prebendaries, distinct from their several chapters: and so is every parson and vicar." Today the use of a corporation sole is slightly different; it is not simply for the holding of property. As we seen earlier, a church is a corporation/legal person and as such it is capable of holding property and entering into contracts. However, since a corporation can't act on its own it needs a legal personality (agent) to do these things. That personality (agent) is the corporation sole. In short, by designating the parson as a corporation sole, the parson is able to carry out the business of the church in "person" (agent). END OF: Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) Sir William Blackstone

By attaching a body corporate (corporation sole which represents the OFFICE of PARSON and its UNDERTAKINGS) to the body natural of a man, in his dual capacity of artificial person and natural person, he is able to protect the rights of the church through perpetual succession. Blacks 1st Law Dictionary CORPORATION SOLE. A corporation consisting of one person only, and his successors in some particular station, who is incorporated by law in order to give his successors in office some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the sovereign in England is a sole corporation, so is a bishop, so are some deans distinct from their several chapters, and so is every parson and vicar. A corporation sole consists of a single person, who is made a body corporate and politic, in order to give him some legal capacities and advantages and especially that of perpetuity; as a bishop, dean, etc. The Overseers of the Poor of the City of Boston v. David Sears 39 Mass (2Pick) 122 at 128 (1839) ". . .In all these aspects, the distinction between an aggregate and sole corporation, growing out of the different modes of constitution and forms of action, is striking and obvious. A bishop or parson acting in a corporate capacity and holding property to him and his successor in right of office, has no need of a corporate name, he requires no particular, he performs all legal acts under his own seal, In his own name and name of office; his own will alone regulates his acts and he has no occasion for a secretary, for he need not keep a record of his acts, need no treasurer, for he has no personal property except the rents and proceeds of the corporate estate, and these he takes to his own use when received. By-laws are unnecessary, for he regulates his own action, by his own will and judgment, like any other individual acting in his own right. But it is not necessary to pursue the comparison into all its details; the points suggested are sufficient to show the legal distinctions between the two classes of corporations."

Professor L.C.B. Gower, The Principles of Modern Company Law (1954) Stevens & Sons, London, p. 62: ... the idea behind the corporation sole is the same as that underlying the corporation aggregate, the personification of the undertaking as opposed to the natural persons operating it from time to time. In the case of the corporation aggregate it is the undertaking which is personified to distinguish it from its members; in the case of the corporation sole it is the office (of bishop, vicar or the like) which is personified to distinguish it from the individual holder from time to

time. It should be stressed, however, that the distinction between the two kinds of corporation has no necessary connection with the number of members; a company is a corporation aggregate, not sole, even though it may be a one-man company. It is to note however that when a man ACTS in the character of the OFFICE, the law treats the body natural and the body corporate as being one and the same.
[

John Doe v. Bennett, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436, 2004 SCC 17 (CanLII) The purpose for which ecclesiastical corporations sole like St. George's are created is to serve as a point of legal interface between the Roman Catholic Church and the community at the diocesan level. The Church is at one and the same time a spiritual presence in the community and a secular actor in the community. The task of the corporation sole is to provide a bridge between the two spheres for the diocese. On a secular level, the Church interacts with members of the diocesan community in a host of ways. It carries on a variety of religious, educational and social activities. It makes contracts with employees. It transports parishioners. It sponsors charitable events. It purchases and sells goods and property. To do these things, it requires a legal personality. That personality is the corporation sole. To restrict the purpose of the corporation sole to the acquisition, holding and administration of property is to capture only a portion of the purpose it is intended to serve and to artificially truncate its functions. The role of the corporation sole as a legal interface between the Church and the community is set forth in the legislation creating it, An Act to Incorporate the Roman Catholic Bishop of St. George's, S.N. 1913, c. 12. The Act, quite simply, incorporates the office of bishop, in all its aspects. It does not confine itself to the holding of property belonging to the diocese. *************************************

Trust Receipts from 89 C.J.S. Trust In trade practice and by the support of the judicial authority, a trust receipt might equally be used in connection with a domestic transaction as it is used in an importation of merchandise.In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y. 30 F.2d 555, 557. Trust receipt. A well-known instrument of commerce, a useful and convenient method of financing commercial transactions. It is an independent security devise employed in commercial credit transactions, frequently employed in the importing trade, and also in the marketing of automobiles, and the same principles govern whether the transaction is domestic or the financing of imports. As used in commerce by credit and financial agencies it is regarded as a security instrumentality which resembles a pledge, a chattel mortgage, or a conditional sales contract,

but is exactly none of these mediums of trade and credit. Some of the chief differences are the absence of actual or immediate delivery, or change of possession, the removal of notice, recordation or verification requirements, and the retention of title in the vendor. By means of the trust receipt, title to goods passes directly from the manufacturer or seller to the banker or lender who, as owner, delivers the goods to the dealer in whose behalf he is acting secondarily, and to whom title goes ultimately when the primary right of the banker has been satisfied. A trust receipt purports to vest and retain title in the holder of the receipt, and it is generally held that rights incident to such title and ownership will be recognized not only as against the one giving the receipt, but his receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, and creditors generally, unless the contract is itself violative of local statutes. Trust receipts have generally been held not subject to recording or filing acts, the reason being that such statutes are to prevent secret liens on property of persons who have had prior possession and ownership of the property, and it is for the same reason that holders of trust receipts have been allowed to prevail against the ultimate purchaser or his trustee in bankruptcy only where the title of the holder was derived from some one other than the debtor. Whether the trust receipt transactions is tripartite type (where the finance company (in New York City) advances the funds for the purchase of the chattel, purchases it and receives title to it from the manufacturer, and delivers possession to the dealer, who gives his trust receipt (street name) to the finance company) or it is the bipartite type (where the dealer has purchased and received title directly from the manufacturer and gives his receipt to the finance company) matters not at all. The Uniform Trust Receipts Act governs receipt transactions. Notes: (Also from 89 C.J.S. Trust) Thoroughly established. Trust receipts, because of their beneficial features in quick credit transactions and their frequent judicial concern, have become thoroughly established and identified in business and law. In re Boswell, D.C. Cal, 20 F.Supp. 748, 751 The origin and development of the trust receipt as a convenient means of financing importations, and its later application to domestic transactions, is exhaustively discussed by the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in the case of In re Fountain Inc., N.Y., 282 F.2d 912, 913. Method of securing mercantile loans. The essential character of the trust receipts has long been understood by the mercantile and banking community. Such trust receipts include the long-established method of securing mercantile loans by a transaction in which the lender, having no prior title to the goods upon which the loan is to be given, and without having possession, which remains in the borrower, lends his money to the borrower upon the security of the goods, which the borrower is privileged to sell clear of the lien, he agreeing to pay all or part of the proceeds of the sale to the lender. The documents in which the transactions are expressed are known in the business and banking world as trust receipts.In re Boswell, C.C.A. Cal., 96 F.2d 239, 241.

Used in domestic transactions In trade practice and by the support of the judicial authority, a trust receipt might equally be used in connection with a domestic transaction as it is used in an importation of merchandise. In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y. 30 F.2d 555, 557. Original use Trust receipts were originally employed as a convenient method of financing importations, and are still so used. In re Bell Motor Co., C.C.A.Mo., 45 F.2d 19, 22. Of vital importance in importing trade By the arrangement known as the trust receipt plan a banker advances money to an intending importer, and thereby lends the aid of capital, of credit, and of business facilities and agencies abroad, to the enterprise of foreign commerce. This practice is of great importance to importers and without it much of our foreign trade would be impossible because the individual importer lacks the necessary capital and foreign credit.In re. Duniap Carpet Co., D.C.Pa., 206 F. 726, 730, 731. As used in the importing trade (1) The term trust receipt is applied to an instrument in writing whereby a banker, having advanced money for the purchase of imported merchandise and having taken title in his own name and retaining such title, delivers possession of the merchandise to the importer on an agreement in writing to hold the merchandise in trust for the banker until he is paid. The only kind of instrument which we have recognized and called a trust receipt is one where the banker at the request of the importer buys goods directly from the foreign seller and takes title in his own name from the foreign seller and then turns the goods which he has thus bought directly in his own name over to the importer on a trust receipt in order that the latter may carry on his own commercial adventure.Simons v. Northeaster Finance Corp. 171 N.E. 643, 644, 271 Mass. 255. (2) A merchant who wishes to import goods for which he has not funds to pay obtains credit from a bank to a fixed amount, against which he draws for the price of the goods to the order of the vendor or the vendor draws for the price of the goods to his own order. The draft with the bill of lading indorsed in blank or to the order of the bank is forwarded by the vendor to the banker for acceptance. The banker accepts the draft payable in one, two, three, or four months, as the case may be, forwards the bill of lading indorsed in blank to his agent in New York, who delivers the same to the importer against a receipt called a trust receipt, whereby he agrees to sell the goods for account of the banker, to pay him the proceeds and so put him in funds to take up the acceptance at maturity.In re Cattus, N.Y., 183 F. 733, 734, 106 C.C.A. 171. [In New York, huh?] (3) It is an instrument whereby the banker advancing the money on an importation takes title directly to himself, and as owner delivers the goods to the dealer in whose behalf he is acting secondarily and to whom the title ultimately is to go when the primary right of the banker has been satisfied, the title remaining in the banker until the price is paid to him.Peoples Nat. Bank v. Mulholland, 117 N.E. 46, 47, 228 Mass. 152. Use extended because of marketing of automobiles

The use of trust receipts has become greatly extended in the United States since the automobile has assumed its nationwide and popular proportions in financing and credit requirements for this major industry.In re Boswell, D.C.Cal., 20 F.Supp. 748, 751. Similarly expressed (1) There are various forms of chattel security, as a pledge, conditional sale, or mortgage. But the trust receipt does not, on its face or by its name, purport to conform to any of these types. It is not a pledge, for a pledge depends upon possession of the parties secured, and, when possession is lost, so is the security. While the title in the case of a pledge is in the pledgor, or in another than the pledge, such is not true in a trust receipt, where the title is intended to remain in the party secured while the possession is intrusted to one who has a certain interest as yet indefinite in the property. The practice of a conditional sale bears some resemblance to a trust receipt. Possession cannot be retaken until there is a default; whereas in a trust receipt, it can be retaken at any time. The holder of the trust receipt is not interested in the sale of the property or its commercial or market value. If he retakes the goods, and sells them for an amount in excess of the sum, this excess belong to the buyer or importer; whereas, in a conditional sale, the buyer is interested only in such amount as he has paid on account of his contract. In any event, the holder of the trust receipt does not sell the goods to the importer or domestic trader, and whether or not the bank, finance company, or individual has an intention of selling goods to him, it lends him credit and advances the money for the buyers account. In the case of a mortgage, whether of chattels or realty, the security is dependent upon the title, as distinguished from a pledge, which rests upon possession. Title is given to the person, while possession may be given to the mortgagor, or the debtor, or his representative. The title thus conveyed to the mortgagee is as security for the performance of his obligation, and, in the case of a trust receipt, title has never been in the importer or domestic buyer, and he consequently cannot convey such title back to the holder of the trust receipt. If the mortgagor conveys his title to the mortgagee as security for the performance of an obligation to a third person, the equity of redemption belongs to him, and not to the third person, and the property reverts to him upon performance of the obligation by the third person. In a trust receipt, under no circumstances does title revert to the manufacturer or seller.: --In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 557, 558. (2) While the security interest afforded by a trust receipt prior to the enactment of the uniform law was somewhat similar to many other forms of chattel security, it may be distinguished from such transactions as s mortgage, pledge or conditional sale. In the case of a mortgage, a lien is given by the mortgagor to the mortgagee in order to secure the latter for the performance of an obligation by the mortgagor who retains possession of the property. The trust receipt does not conform to a pledge, since in the case of a pledge the security depends upon possession of the goods by the person secured; whereas in the case of a trust receipt, the entruster does not have possession of the goods. In the case of a conditional sale, possession may not ordinarily be retaken until there is a default in the contract; whereas under a trust receipt transaction, possession may be retaken at any time. Other distinguishing features of these various types of security interest under the former law are clearly indicated in the case of In re James, Inc., 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 555.C.I.T. Corporation v. Commercial Bank of Patterson, 149 P.2d 439, 442, 64 Cal.App.2d 722Chichester v. Commercial Credit Co., 99 P.2d 1083, 1085, 37 Cal.App.2d 439.

(3) In a trust receipt transaction it was held that no element of a conditional sale or chattel mortgage was present, and consequently none of the requisites to the validity of such instruments was required.In re E. Reboulin Fils & Co., D.C.N.J., 165 F. 245, 248. May be a chattel mortgage When the substance of the transaction is considered rather than the form, a trust receipt may be nothing but a chattel mortgage on a stock of merchandise daily exposed for sale in parcels at retail. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Boddecker, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W. 1016, 1018. Not chattel mortgage (1) Upon examination of the instrument in suit it seems plain enough that there was no obligation imposed on the sales company either to pay or to secure a purchase price, nor did any title pass to the sales company to support a chattel mortgage back.Globe Securities Co. V. Gardner Motor Co., 85 S.W.2d 561, 567, 337 Mo. 177. (2) The decisions are not entirely in harmony as to the nature of trust receipts of the character involved in this proceeding, or their proper interpretation, whether they constitute conditional sales contracts, or, are; in their nature; chattel mortgagees, or contracts of agency creating bailments. The holding in this state is that they are contracts creating bailments for sale and not in their nature chattel mortgages.Commercial Credit Co. v. Interstate Securities Co., Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 1000, 1004. Close resemblance to conditional sale The trust receipt transaction in its historic aspects and fundamental theory more nearly falls under the category of a conditional sale than a chattel mortgage.Walter v. Commercial Credit Co., 200 N.W. 300, 302, 68 S.D. 151. Superior protection to unrecorded chattel mortgage It has been recognized that trust receipts should have superior protection as compared with an unrecorded chattel mortgage, when they are given to a lender of money by some one other than the debtor, and where either the delivery or possession against trust receipts is made to the debtor.In re James. Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 558. Similarly expressed Under the ordinary form of trust receipt, it is well settled that the title to the property is in the holder of the receipt, and not in the receiptor, and the rights incident to such title and ownership will be enforced as against the one giving the receipt, his receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, and creditors generally. The courts in so holding are, in most instances, merely giving effect to the express provisions of the trust receipt, one of which commonly is that the goods are held as the property of the party to whom the receipt is given.In re Otto-Johnson Mercantile Co. D.C.N.M., 52 F.2d 678, 680. Recording not required The holder of a trust receipt, if he derives his security title from a person other than the one responsible for the satisfaction of the obligation which the property secures, is not obliged to file his security as is required in the case of a chattel mortgage. In such cases only can he deliver

the property to the obligor to act as his fiduciary.In re James Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 557. Purpose of act. The Uniform Trust Receipts Act is a perplexing maze of technical phrases wholly incomprehensible without an extensive study of the background and development of the security device known as the trust receipt. To avoid trespassing upon the traditional and well defined fields of such common security devices as the pledge, conditional sale and chattel mortgage, most of the act is devoted to definition, limitation and restriction of the arena in which the new device is to play its part in the world of commerce. The object of the Act is to standardize and protect the trust receipt method of financing the acquisition and resale of goods in their journey form producer to retailer.In re Chappell, C.C.Or., 77 F.Supp. 573, 575

*******************************************

COVER LETTER SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

Claimant/Grantor continues to declare Truth in form of affidavit, as best as Claimant knows it and believes it to be; this Affiant, Secured Party, Private Attorney General, and Servant of the Most High Creator, in, and for, His Higher Kingdom, John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, said Servant being duly and properly Baptized unto His Righteousness and claiming Birthright of the Lineage of Jacob, of the Tribe of Judah of the Lower Branch, which included the Spartans, Trojans, Milesians, Frankish, Scandinavian, and Irish/Scots, was grafted into the Higher Branch of Judah with the marriage of King Eochaidh to Princess Tamar Talphi; Claimant also claims an unmeasured bloodline of the Tribe of Dan and of the Tribe of Gad, and, of unmeasured aboriginal American National bloodline of the Tribal Nation Cherokee and Chief Moytoy; and, Now, therefore, by the Authority of the Original Organic Constitution of The United States of America and the Oath of Office of all duly sworn officers and employees of the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF MISSOURI and every subdivision of said corporate government, I do beckon, request, and demand restitution of Claimants Property (which may have been stolen, confiscated, pirated, or taken for unauthorized use by another) and Rights and compensation of damages for the injuries brought upon me, and enumerated in this, and annexed/associated documents.

This/these Claim(s) is/are authorized to be timely and expeditiously processed under the 72-hour rule as referenced in The Expeditious Transaction Act, 12 CFR Part 226.1 and Truth In Lending Act 31 CFR Sec. 226.1

If Accord and Satisfaction are not attained, Claimant reserves the right to initiate a Libel of Information to issue an arrest warrant for the bonds of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund or any of his agents (referenced at 28 USC, PART VI, CHAPTER 163) in order to protect the interest of a Free Inhabitant of The United States of America. Administrative action against Claimant/Grantor is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 USC 7421, by Claimant/Grantor protecting the combination of property rights and contract rights that has been placed in custody by the agents of the Treasury, the Department of Transportation, the Bureau of the Census, various and sundry Agencies, and the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue laws of the corporate United States. FRCP Rule 81 makes reference to rights and safe guards, paid for in the highest premium - the blood of Claimants ancestors that died in the War of Independence (and the risk of Claimant/Grantors blood, 1966 - 1968 (see DD 214)), for the People of The United States of America and their posterity, therewith, establishing a Constitutional precedence and supremacy, whereby failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242) is a Criminal Offense. The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of Chicago published a circular titled PUBLIC DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET in January 1999. On page four of said circular it plainly states, to a consumer a savings account at a bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt. Several paragraphs later it says, Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of the governments debt is someone's asset. [Emphasis added] The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 - "A 'citizen of the United States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4." NOTE: The Living Man chooses NOT to participate in the any act/action of a DEAD (corporate) entity. This act/action of the de facto government of the UNITED STATES as mentioned in the last paragraph exemplifies and makes plain the fact that said UNITED STATES corporation, a stranger, has usurped ABATEMENT OF FREEHOLD under unlawful intervention by seizing and taking possession of property belonging to a Living Man This counter against Abatement of Freehold is deemed a BILL RENDERED, a bill rendered by a creditor to his debtor, and a BILL OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT to assure that any defects are cured, so as to entitle Claimant to relief on the whole merit of Claim. ************************************

Affidavit and Declaration

I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, under the Jurisdiction of Natural Law, the Living Flesh and Blood Man, the Son of Man, and hereditary sibling of The Anointed One, made explicit in Gutenberg Bible for Birth Trust Claims as registered in Repository: Library of Congress Bible Collection, Illus. in Incun. 1454.B5, do on this date: June 10th, 2010 CE, at this location 37.11363-92.58489 (Grid Co-ordinates) from the beginning, non-movable, instituted and established upon attainment of majority of age, competent to take control of my own financial affairs as Executor of Estate and able to honor all claims, do declare under penalty of perjury to be a Statesman of the Missouri Republic and a Statesman of the Aniyvwiya Nation, Category Four (4) [non-treaty] Aboriginal North American Natives.

By Grantor, Executor for the Estate Under duress per minas, ephemeral and desultory codes, statutes, and regulations with protest affirmed, without United States. JURAT Missouri state ) ) Wright county ____________) Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me. ______________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: ___________ ***************************************** (seal)

YOUR PICTURE HERE In the Account of JohnQuincy: Jones Who may be NOTICED at: C/O 123 West Columbus Street Somewhere, Missouri Republic Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

Power of Attorney ACKNOWLEDGMENT: And, grant of Exclusive power of attorney to conduct all business, and legal affairs of principal person. POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT 1) In the Matter of the DEBTOR/GRANTOR known as JOHN JONES, JONES-JOHN, J.Q.. JONES, JOHN QUINCY JONES, John Q. Jones, or any derivative(s) thereof, {who may be Noticed at above location for NOTICE, does hereby appoint John-Quincy: Jones, as my attorney in fact, to take exclusive charge of, manage, and conduct all of my taxing, business and legal affairs, all Copyrights, and for such purpose to act for me in my name and place, without limitation on the powers necessary to execute this exclusive attorney in fact as authorized: (A) To take possession of, hold, and manage my Real Property or Estate and all other Property; (B) DEBTOR/GRANTOR John Q. Jones, being a beneficiary of various trusts by similar sounding names, or derivatives thereof, agrees to function primarily as a 'transmitting utility', conducting commercial activity including all receivables being money, currency, notes, and/or Property paid or delivered to me from any source for the Secured Party/Creditor and agrees to enter in the 'Chamber Commercial Registry' as said 'transmitting utility' and has assigned the Creditor John-Quincy: Jones, with said Christian Appellation, complete Power of Attorney in fact, for the Secured Party, Creditor, and Agent of Authority;

(C) To deposit funds in, make withdrawals from, or sign checks or drafts against any account standing in my name individually or jointly in any bank or other depository, to cash coupons, bonds, or certificates of deposits to endorse checks, notes or other documents in my name; to have access to, and place items in or remove them from, any safety deposit box standing in my name individually, and otherwise to conduct bank transactions or business for me in my name; (D) To pay my just obligations and expenses, including reasonable expenses incurred by my attorney in fact John-Quincy: Jones, that may be considered prudent in exercising this exclusive power of attorney in fact; (E) To retain any/all equity involving investments, invest, and to invest in stock, bonds or other securities, or in Real Property or Estate or other Property; (F) To give general and special proxies or exercise rights of conversion or rights with respect to shares or securities, to assign shares or securities with, or transfer them to protective committees or similar bodies, to join in any reorganization and transfer assessments and/or subscriptions called for in connection with shares or securities; (G) To grant, sell, transfer, exchange, lease, give options, and make contracts concerning Real Property or Estate or other Property for such considerations and on such terms as my Attorney in Fact John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent; (H) To improve or develop Real Property or Estate, to construct, alter, or repair building structures and appurtenances or Real Property or Estate; to settle boundary lines, easements, mineral and other rights with respect to Real Property or Estate; to plant, cultivate, harvest, and sell or otherwise dispose of crops and timber, and do all things necessary or appropriate to good husbandry; (I) To provide for the use, maintenance, repair, security, or storage for any/all my tangible Property or Estate; (J) To purchase and maintain such policies of insurance against liability, fire, casualty, or other risks as my attorney in fact John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent; (K) To amend, add, delete, or change in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined in any form of contract that John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent. The Creditor, John-Quincy: Jones, named on the Filing UCC1 # 123456789000 and Commercial Security Agreement filed with the Secretary of State of Missouri is authorized by

law to act for and in control of the DEBTOR/GRANTOR being JOHN Q. JONES, JOHN QUINCY JONES, J.Q. JONES or any derivative(s) thereof. In addition, through the exclusive power of attorney in fact to contract for all business and legal affairs of the principal person, DEBTOR/GRANTOR known as JOHN Q. JONES, JOHN QUINCY JONES, J.Q. JONES or any derivative(s) thereof. The term "exclusive" shall be construed to mean that while these powers of attorney in fact are in force, only my attorney in-fact may obligate me in these matters, and I forfeit the capacity to obligate myself with regard to same. This grant of Exclusive Power is Irrevocable during the lifetime of the Creditor John-Quincy: Jones. Executed and sealed by the voluntary act of my own hand, this _____ day of _______________, 2010. John-Quincy: Jones, one living servant of Yahshua the Christ, prepared this instrument. I, the above named exclusive attorney-in-fact, do hereby accept the fiduciary interest and duty of the herein named Debtor/Grantor and will execute the herein granted powers-of-attorney with due diligence. Acceptance: This __ day of ___________, 2010 L.S. /S/ JOHN Q. JONES, GRANTOR DEBTOR Signature /UCC 3-419 by _________________________________________ John-Quincy: Jones, Creditor / Attorney in fact.

**************************** In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones Who may be NOTICED at: C/O 123 West Columbus Street Somewhere, Missouri Republic 14084 North State Highway 125 Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

NOTICE - REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY And, Previous Codicil pursuant to 26673 and 261341

I, John-Quincy: Jones, born a Missouri state Citizen, living in Missouri and not residing "in the state" nor "in this state" within the meaning of any other "federal area" described under Title 4 U.S.C. 110 (d) and (e), making My Abode outside the STATE OF MISSOURI and the U.S described in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(39) in and not "of" Missouri entitled to Judicial Power Citizenship status due a de jure Missouri state Citizen thereof invoking the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America reserved exclusively to the People, hereby revoke, rescind and make void, ab initio, all 13 th amendment presumed powers of attorney, in fact, or, otherwise, implied in law, or otherwise, signed either by me or by anyone else in and/or on my behalf, as it pertains to an alleged Social Security Number assigned and/or attached to Missouri Drivers License Number #A1234567, birth certificates marriage license and all other licenses and/or certificates issued by any/all state and/or Federal governmental/ quasi governmental entities, due to use of the various elements of fraud by said agencies to deprive John-Quincy: Jones of My primary Missouri state Citizenship and Privileges and Immunities secured by Article 1V, Section 4 of the Constitution for the united States of America. I, John-Quincy: Jones hereby waive, cancel, repudiate and refuse to knowingly accept any benefit and/or gratuity attached to the above-mentioned items and/or transactions that are not secured by Article 1, 10 (U.S. Const.). YOU HAVE BEEN NOTICED. Done this __ day of __________, 2010 by __________________________authorized representative John-Quincy: Jones, Secured Party *******************************

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS

TO: RISK MANAGEMENT AT EVERY LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATION Greetings: BE INFORMED; to protect my Interests, Properties, and Rights, I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, as Trustee and in the nature of Private Attorney General, do, herein, make known my intention to investigate, pursue, and expose Dishonest Acts that may have been exercised against me and concealed from me to the detriment of my interests, rights, and properties.

Attached and annexed to this document are various Affidavits in support to fully establish my Claims. This is Actual and Constructive Notice that, in accordance with Treasury Directive 25-06 and 1614 that all Confidential Commercial Information in this set of Claims are presented to several affiliated parties and the Treasury Data Integrity Board for their inspection as prescribed. Therefore, any and all agents may be in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hallenbeck v. Leimert 295 U S 116 (1935) and under the Erie and Clearfield Doctrines where individuals responsible can be held personally liable.

Trustee ____________________________, authorized representative

***************************** RELEASE of POWER OF APPOINTMENT and DEED OF AGENCY OVER PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST COMES NOW: John-Quincy: of the Jones Family hereinafter Affiant, who is of lawful age and sound mind, who is a competent witness and is telling the truth, voluntarily relating the following first hand knowledge of the facts and stating that these facts are true and represent the best of my knowledge. Affiant hereby exercises Powers of Powerholder Trustee to Discharge Co-Trustee's Obligation. [Gift Resulting from Exercise of Special Power of Appointment by Life Beneficiary of Trust to Appoint Corpus to Another.] Applicable Retained Interest and Qualified Payment Right This is a release of Power Of Appointment and Deed Of Agency over property held in any, and all, manner of trust under any nomenclature, in whole, made under false directives, mis-information, intentional mis-representation, et cetera, and as such, all matters legal, lawful, and expedient, under the signature of the Man, John-Quincy: Jones, Affiants Christian Appellation, or Affiants Trustworthy signet of: John Q. Jones, J.Q. Jones, or several other variations of similitude. This release of Appointment functions as a NOTICE under 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (Section 1), July Twenty seventh eighteen sixty eight and serves as notice unto all government employees that the below signed Citizen of Missouri Republic, an American Citizen, may, and

has, legally and lawfully expatriate(d) out of the jurisdiction of the United States into the jurisdiction of a Sovereign State and claim State Citizenship. At the young age in Affiant's childhood years, Affiant was informed by employees of the federal government that the law required Affiant to obtain, and that Affiant should "have", a Social Security Card before Affiant could work or otherwise be compensated for labor. Affiant applied for a Social Security card and was issued the number 123-45-6789. The contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy that resulted in the issuance of the above Social Security Number is invalid because Affiant did not have legal capacity in Affiant's minor years of age for signing a binding contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy. Because the supreme Court has determined that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts and even judgments, the Social Security Card that was issued bearing a name similar to Affiant's Christian Appellation is null and void, ab initio, as if it had never been issued, because of fraud by the Social Security Administration. John-Quincy: Jones is hereby and herein completely released out of the Social Security contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy, said release is absolute and upon fulfillment of consideration by the Social Security Trust Fund, the Social Security Administration is unconditionally released out of all obligations on behalf of John-Quincy: Jones without consideration for the Social Security Administration. The above described Social Security Card bearing the number 123-45-6789 is maintained under custodial care by authorized caregiver and shall be kept safe and reasonably free from harm until just and adequate compensation from Affiant's various Trust Funds is rendered to Affiant. At the point of just and adequate consideration, said card shall be surrendered to the Social Security Administration, the Agency that issued said card, or, if requested by compensating agent, Affiant shall surrender said card to him/her. According to Black's 1st, "Deed of Agency" is a revocable and voluntary trust for the payment of debts. All Deeds of Agency are hereby revoked, in toto, by Affiant. Before the Almighty Creator and under His statutes, I declare that the foregoing is the truth in accord with the best of my knowledge and belief. You are hereby NOTICED.

__________________________________ John-Quincy: Jones, Sui Juris ACKNOWLEDGMENT

John-Quincy: Jones, the undersigned, who is personally known by me or upon proper identification, appeared before me this day and signed the within instrument in my presence and for the purposes therein stated. Signed this ____day of ____________, 2010, at City of Somewhere, County of Wright, Missouri State

SEAL

_________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires on:_______________________________________

**************************************

SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION This issue is confusing in it most simple form, thus, this summary, to explain why this procedure is important, and why it must function as directed. 1. 2. 3. 4. Due to convoluted and distorted education, many believe what we were taught in the public fool system, which is contrary to our best interests. All commerce (outside of bartering) is controlled by PRIVATE business structure and is regulated through private IRS codes. The use of Federal Reserve Notes places users within jurisdiction of private corporate laws. Under assumption/presumption we operate and function under the doctrine of "Partus Sequitur Ventrem," meaning that the offspring is the property of the owner of the mother. The usual witness to the application for a Birth Certificate is normally the mother. The doctrine of Parens Patriae, Latin, means "parent of the country," the role of the state as sovereign. See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., is forced upon us. The doctrine In Loco Parentis, means in the place of the parent; or, instead of a parent; charged factitiously with a parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities. See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., is, also, forced upon us.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

The past 3 points displays presumptions/assumptions that when the mother (any mother, or other informant) signs the application for a birth certificate of the child, the presumption is that she is the black slave that is still owned by the government, or that the child is a fatherless [bastard] child (of a truth, most document administrators reporting in, and for, hospitals, do NOT care that there is a Father's Name on the birth certificate, but the Mother's MAIDEN Name is paramount) and automatically a ward of the court/government, therefore, without this admonition, the doctrine of Partus Sequitur Ventrem (above) applies and the owner (the STATE) can do with the children as the owner wishes. As such, the herd of Sheeple is managed until each individual reaches the age of majority. Food and necessities are provided by welfare; education is provided by primary education program. [Concerning such owned children of the state] "The law secures their parental right only so long as they shall promptly recognize and discharge their corresponding obligations. As the child owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, so it is entitled to the protection of that government, which as parens patriae, must consult its welfare, comfort, and interests in regulating its custody during its minority. See PURINTON v. JAMROCK, 195 Mass. 187, 80 N.E. 102, 18 L.R.A., N.S., 925. To continue the thought (as quoted in the 2000 Census brochure), the object of the Census, by law, is to count the "defective, dependent, and delinquent classes". Virtually everyone counted in the 2000 Census is now presumed to be "defective, dependent, and delinquent", and thus, wards of the Court/State. Does that sound like a corporate collection of "incompetent persons"? Upon attainment of age of majority we are to declare that we are competent to take control of our own financial affairs of estate and able to honor all claims, and declare under penalty of perjury to be a Statesman of the Republic of Missouri. According to another researcher 6.5m USD was transferred into a slush fund with each application for a Social Security Card. Those funds can be transferred into an account that we can utilize upon the collapsing of the SS trust. In a different branch or direction of thought, everything in the fiction is ass-backwards, upside down, or inside out. Our birth bond account is accessible upon completion of #9 above and the issuance of a NEGATIVE ( - ) charging instrument (Promissory Note or I.B.O.E.) issued to the Treasurer (not the Sec. of the Treasury) in the amount charged to our account.

My will, wishes, and desire is to freely travel without harassment, intimidation, coercion, or fear of corporate Pirates operating under letters of Marquee and Reprisal and Liberate my own commercial character to barter and exchange values that my necessities for body, spirit, and emotional enjoyment may be attained by utilizing the assets that have been my own since the age of majority. ******************************************

NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

I, John-Quincy: Jones, as pre-existing Beneficiary do herewith exercise my Right of Claim under International Law, Law of Nations, and International Trust Law to appoint a Successor Trustee by authority on one, or more, of the following provisions: A. If a person appointed as trustee fails to qualify, is unwilling to or unable to serve or resigns as trustee or if a trustee was not designated in the deed of trust, the beneficiary may appoint a successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee. Change and substitution may result from any of several reasons for disqualifications and/or replacements; acknowledged reasons follow: 1. If previous Trustee is not a known person with office, or position, to be properly Noticed; 2. If previous Trustee is not qualified to discharge debts of Beneficiary; 3. If previous Trustee has made his person, or office, unaccountable to the law of Trusts, International Law, and Common Law to provide harmony and continuity in commerce; or, 4. If previous Trustee has initiated any action, at any time, of any issue that was not fully disclosed to Beneficiary from the beginning ; B. The beneficiary may at any time remove a trustee for any reason or cause and appoint a successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee. C. A notice of substitution of trustee shall be made public by proper and timely placement of Actions of Record within locally, or regionally, circulated news media, or, by endorsement under Oath before a Public Notary, or by record in the office of the county recorder of each county in which the trust property or some part of the trust property is situated at the time of the substitution. D. In all Issues that may arise, Appointment of Nominee precedes Substitution of Successor Trustee. Beneficiary hereby appoints: _____________________________ agent John Q. Jones, c/o 123 West Columbus Street, Somewhere, Missouri, near [12345] as Nominee, is herein appointed as qualified Successor Trustee in trustees capacity as a Transmitting Utility, effective date of signing. Missouri state ) ) Wright county ____________) Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

______________________________ My commission expires: ___________ Notary Public ***************************************

(seal)

APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE I certify that I am voluntarily appointing a nominee. I authorize all applicable departments and agencies to discuss any/all details pertinent to me with my nominee. I authorize all departments and agencies to send letters pertinent to me to my nominee. I understand that I can cancel this appointment at any time by noticing nominee and applicable departments and agencies. John-Quincy: of the Jones Family

DECLARATION NOMINEE I certify that any information I obtain from any applicable department or agency will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to any unauthorized person without the permission of the person appointing me. I understand that I can cancel this appointment at any time, by writing to the applicable departments and agencies. I understand that I must inform the applicable departments and agencies of any changes to my address and contact details and changes in the circumstances of the person who has appointed me. Nominee and Authorized Representative ____________________________________

Missouri state

) )

Wright county ____________) Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me. ______________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: ___________ (seal)

*********************************

Private and Confidential

TO: Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer of the United States, hereinafter Treasurer Department of Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220 TO: Mr./Mrs. Whoever, Comptroller of the Missouri Treasury Address TO: Senior Senator of ______ State and all addressees listed on ____________ page.

WILL AND TESTAMENT: THIS IS FULL AND COMPLETE STATEMENT of The Man, last mentioned in this stipulation, done so on this date: July 05, 2010, at this location (GOOGLE EARTH) (Grid Co-ordinates) made certain, from The Beginning, non-movable and made known, this, my WILL AND TESTAMENT, to wit:

DECLARATION OF VENUE AND JURISDICTION

The Man, Praedial, (see EXHIBIT O), hereinafter referred to as Grantor, does ascertain, through examination and discovery, that colorable venue and jurisdiction of the fiction does NOT apply to Grantor, nor does said colorable venue and jurisdiction of a/any DELAWARE TRUST bankruptcy venue apply to the estate and property of Grantor. The choice of Venue and Jurisdiction by Grantor is Jurisdiction of Creator Yahweh, made explicit in Gutenberg Bible for Birth Trust Claims as registered in Repository: Library of Congress Bible Collection, Illus. in Incun. 1454.B5, and Jurisdiction of Natural Law as expressed by the Trust of 1776 known as The Declaration of Independence; and, Grantor does, without reservation, Pledge Allegiance to, and give cognizance to, the Freely Associated Compact States, each and severally, of America.

NON-ASSUMPSIT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT Blacks Law 5th Non-assumpsit. The general issue in the action of assumpsit; being a plea by which the defendant avers, "he did not undertake or promise as alleged." Agency of State is commercial Charter of Maritime jurisdiction; Grantor herein refutes agency terms of Uniform Commercial Code 3-104 "promise" and rejects "unconditional" actions and impositions as "unconscionable" at UCC 2-302 as it/they apply to implied, assumed, and/or presumed acts, actions, and/or contracts allegedly done by Grantor.

DECLARATION OF WAR (COMMERCIAL CONFLICT) Also, referred to as Mixed Domestic War For purposes of this Declaration of Commercial Conflict (WAR) Grantor of the Trust(s) is Claimant. Claimants state citizenship is only as a Citizen of Common Right and is brought forth along with personam Rights, which do not mingle with statute procedure. Claimant does not understand the charges wherein citizens were/are deemed Enemies of the State wherein the State has Declared War on We Thee People by Statutory Act, making a Public War and not a Civil War and "due to mistakes in fact and Law," Claimant makes all Claims "without prejudice." NOTE: An Act of War causes an incidental/non-participant to be, also, at War. Claimant is against the wall and remits this Extra-Ordinary Action to obtain remedy and restitution. Under emergency powers there must be an active and visible occupation of the land by armed troops of the entity that declares emergency powers. This is called " open and notorious, armed and hostile, occupation of the land." Under the guise of emergency, the police, firemen, highway patrol, state marshals, and county sheriffs have been placed under control of the National Guard, which was federalized in 1972.

See EXHIBIT ZA for further details concerning DECLARATION OF WAR. Solemn Recognition of Mixed Domestic War A solemn recognition of "Mixed War" is an instrument which contains a criminal complaint that includes an "Affidavit of Information", ......On or about......"date"........, ......"did unlawfully"....., ........"committed as follows"....... and sworn declaration that the State has denied the party all civilized remedies for his/her problem. The universal format for writing a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, is the well-known example of such an instrument known as the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, Claimant does give recognition of Mixed War as a direct Criminal Action against Claimant within this AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION, to wit: On or about Claimants attainment of age of majority (stated elsewhere in this set of documents) various minions of the Corporate UNITED STATES did unlawfully deny and deprive Claimant of Claimants true inheritance of substantive property and rights to property, as follows: 1. by effectively removing the proper court(s) from ready access to Claimant, 2. by effectively placing secret liens on Claimants account(s), 3. by effectively placing fictitious and factitious privateers (Inland Pirates), masquerading as figures of authority operating under letters of Marque and Reprisal to plunder and steal Prize and Booty from Claimant and Claimants account(s) through implementation of cash register law, and 4. by effectively concealing material facts (See RULE BY OLOGARCHY, below) from Claimant in order to maintain a starvation status upon Claimant and forcing Claimant into Involuntary Servitude. Claimant does declare that the State in every form and echelon has denied Claimant all civilized remedies for Claimants distress and said State is ordered to SURCEASE: so declared this 5th day of July, 2010: as witnessed (See Signature Page). Also, See EXHIBIT ZB for further information concerning Mixed Domestic War.

RULE BY OLIGARCHY An "oligarchy" is a government run by the few, the "few" being, without doubt, attorneys, is the extreme of democracy, the end product of which is mass confusion in the minds of thoughtful and meaningful people with a simple explanation as follows: To show that Congress INTENTIONALLY has made the laws unreadable by the average person, an objective method of measuring the readability of English text must be discussed.

English scholars use a scale known as the "Flesch Index" that measures the level of understanding necessary for an individual to comprehend the written English language. Newspapers are written at an average comprehension level of 7. The average high school graduate reads and understands at a level of 10. The average law school graduate reads and comprehends at a level of 15. The Internal Revenue Code ranks on this index at an average level of 31, with some specific provisions as high as 55 . And the words that are used in the law have specific legal definitions that are different from the common English definitions. Since the laws that we are supposed to obey are written at a level that an individual of reasonable intelligence cannot understand, then perhaps we should be highly suspect of the law writer's motives. By making the law so difficult to comprehend, Congress has effectively removed our access to Justice and Equality under the Law .

CLAIM OF AUTONOMY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AUTONOMY. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence. Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination. Grantor (Grantor/Claimant), by Grantors own Will and Oath does, herein, declare full and complete Autonomy against any/all entity/entities that do, or attempt to, assert/usurp will or authority integrated into, in conjunction with, or in any measure of convergence over, or upon, Grantor, in Grantors capacity of Living Man/Spirit, or any of Grantors own persons/personages in present and future (omni) time.

NON-WITHHOLDING FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST Grantor of FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST (see EXHIBIT M and N) and LIEN CREDITOR (see EXHIBIT P) and PARSON (persona ecclesiae, quatenus parson See EXHIBIT G and R) who was, under assumption and presumption, the Beneficiary to the Trust(s) (see EXHIBIT Q1 and Q2), do transfer all interest (alienable/transferable) in foreign situs trust(s), and cestui que trust(s), or any other type of trust(s) established on, or after, the registry of the Certificate of Live Birth and the application for Social Security Benefits and various other applications for privileges to Grantor, the rightful holder in due course under Jurisdiction established in declaration of venue and jurisdiction above, and grants no Gifts, Bequests, and Devises to any other; and, herein proclaims: 1. The NAME of the Trust is JOHN QUINCY JONES (See EXHIBIT ZC); and,

2.

The BENEFICIARY to the Trust is the Flesh and Blood Living Man, John-Quincy: together with the Spirit of Life that dwells within the vessel of the Man; and, 3. The TRUSTEE to the Trust, whose True Value is that of Steward, but, sits as Trustee, is the Commercial Character, owned In Toto by the Living Man whose Vessel(s) may be named: John Q. Jones, JOHN QUINCY JONES, JOHN Q. JONES, J.Q. JONES, with said names claimed and declared as exclusive property of the Living Man (see EXHIBIT R). Grantor lets NO license to any agent/agency to assert any type of jurisdiction over Grantor , even when Grantor makes reference to court cases, federal or state statutes and codes, or executive orders, which are for readers reference only, and must not be construed as submission by Grantor to any jurisdiction other than that previously established, using such quotes as a "compass rather than a crutch" as intent does not yield jurisdiction by referring and using words of the wisdom expressed by the authority of antiquity to admonish, edify, and fortify Grantor's Character of Person and Grantor's Will and Intent of Living Man. Also, use of a notary is for attestation, verification and identification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status, relationship, association nor does it constitute consent to be governed.

CHARGING ORDER FOR EQUIBLE CONVERSION [This Charging Order must first be deemed a Requisition] Grantor does herein, initiate this Extra-Judicial Action and commence this Notice, Action, and Undertaking in the Nature of an Undertaker, Mortician, and Funeral Director; (to protect any interest Grantor may have in Grantors Commercial Character, Rights, and Property, see EXHIBIT R) and Grantor does take charge of (see EXHIBIT S) the Corpus of Debt/Death that has been charged to the Vessel JOHN QUINCY JONES and all identifying numbers, as Registries or Enrollments, associated with said vessel name, including, but not limited to all: Social Security Administration numbers, Internal Revenue Service numbers, Driver Licensing numbers, Military numbers, and Insurance numbers operational under public and de facto Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

INTESTATE REBUTTAL Grantor explicitly refutes any status of being, or having been, INTESTATE. Grantor is a Real Man (organic in nature) and a Living Spirit (inorganic in nature); neither is Grantor TESTATE (having died, leaving a will) for Grantor is NOT DEAD. Plainly stated, I AM; Grantor is IN ESSE, in being, actually existing, not a fiction. Grantor is IN FULL LIFE, continuing in both physical and civil existence; that is neither actually dead nor civiliter mortuus.

INJURY OF TRESPASS ADMITTED And, NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL Grantor plainly states that Grantors Rights of Property are trespassed upon by IN FRAUDEM CREDITORUM, meaning in fraud of creditors, with intent to defraud creditors. Grantor demands restitution and revival of all assets that are/was charged to Grantors account(s) and orders such assets to be immediately restored IN FULL. [Let us not forget who the debtor is and where the debtor is located U.C.C. 9-307(h).] The Department of Treasury, as Bank, is the Debtor [See PUBLIC DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET below]; Grantor is Secured Party; Grantors Agent is Creditor. Creditor takes security interests in, and, expresses prior and superior claim to, Deposit Accounts of Original Collateral on behalf of Secured Party and, herein, issues NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL in effort to cure the defect realized by default actuated IN FRAUDEM CREDITORUM. Creditor, on behalf of Secured Party, accepts and executes duties as Customer of said bank (Department of Treasury) and Consumer of aggregated funds. [Offers and Stipulations may be verified in U.C.C. Article 9] In a Publication of January 1999, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago titled, PUBLIC DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET on page 4 you will find, to a consumer a savings account at a bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt. Four paragraphs later: Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of governments debt is someones asset.

NOTICE OF ABATEMENT This Action is commenced with the intent to counter the Abatement of Freehold where a stranger, having no right, hath taken possession of property belonging to the Living Man, herein so identified, to wit: By Grantors hand and under Grantors Will: Grantor, does herein ordain this Directive as a Requisition and an Order concerning all account(s), to include, but not limited to, any/all ContraAsset, Inverse-Accounts, and Adverse-Accounts originated upon, or after, the entry, recording, and registry of the/all vessel(s) derivative of/from the entry, recording, and registry of the Application for CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH of the living man-child of the male gender, file number 123-45, State File number 123-45-678900, and number 123456 on back of Birth Certificate copy, listing Registrant as: JOHN QUINCY JONES, Registrant number B1234567890, recorded at Port of Entry, Douglas county and forwarded to Vital Statistics at Capital

City, State Republic and, also, includes, but is not limited to, all sub-accounts, SSN 123-45-6789, Driver License A1234567, past Credit Card numbers (unknown), past Mortgage Deed Numbers (unknown), past hunting and fishing licenses (unknown), etc., that were established in direct relationship to said account(s) originating at, in, or near THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, Special Drawing Rights, etc., and,

IS DIRECTED TO: United States President-Barrack Hussein Obama, Secretary of State-Hillary Rodham Clinton, Treasurer of the United States-Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Secretary of the Treasury-Timothy F. Geithner, and to all fictitious, factitious, and de facto agents/agencies exercising a direct, or indirect, contact, contract, or any fiduciary, or custodial, relationship of, over, or with access into all said accounts to Abate the Nuisance and terminate the Trustee-ship (as made specific by usurped Abatement of Freehold in the above enumerated accounts) immediately and fully account for 1) the foreign situs trust, formed after the Application for a Birth Certificate (Acknowledgement of Paternity), and 2) the/a cestui que trust, which may be resultant of the/a Social Security account and the/any exemption account, and revert all funds, account balances, and ledger entries to said Estate (as Holder in Due Course of all Remainderman assets) and charge that portion of an account commonly known as the National Debt, related Trust Indentures, and all other charges of expense to inure to the benefit of the Estate (estate means equitable state) listed under the CONCLUSION section of this document with direct access and supervision of John-Quincy: for Grantors sole use, discretion, and pleasure. (See EXHIBIT CC Capitalized NAMES, explained)

NOTICE OF INTEREST NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE INTEREST THIS NOTICE INFORMS ALL PARTIES who may seek to obtain an interest of any kind in the Property, or Rights to Property, under the Title of JOHN QUINCY JONES, are transferred into the Trust named JOHN QUINCY JONES by Grantor, letting all Interest in the properties to the control and execution of Grantors Commercial Character, the person named John Q. Jones, as Trust Interest Executor and Executive Trustee/Steward of the Trust.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

(Which is now Confidential Commercial Information) BE INFORMED: this STATEMENT OF INTEREST makes known to the entire world that Grantor is the Sole Holder In Due Course of Interest in the Trust and Commercial Legal Entity named JOHN QUINCY JONES and that this STATEMENT OF INTEREST is initiated after above NOTICE OF INTEREST, but not more than thirty (30) days after said Notice and NOTICES all Parties that a Claim is fully established and diminishes any Notice of Adverse Claim by any other possible Claimant.

NOTICE OF EXCHANGER AND TRANSFER AGENT Grantor, in the Nature of an Exchanger and Insurance Adjuster, as provider of Extensions of Credit (referenced at Title 18, Sec. 894), being the Fountain and Source of all related Labor, Energy, and Currency, herein acknowledges and gives cognizance of Transferable Value and, by way of Subrogation, places a transfer of Value from the Visible (vessel) to the Invisible (ledgered Book Entry Only account wherein Grantors Agent is Executive Trustee/Steward and Grantor is Beneficial Owner of account) through, by, and of, Grantors Acceptance of Certificate of Live Birth (see EXHIBIT A) and Presidential Oath (See EXHIBIT F) to bring clarity and balance in an arena whereby Corporate Personhood propagates Unequal Protection (see EXHIBIT ZE), and by previously published Testamentary Affidavit (see EXHIBIT H) and Letter Rogatory, Entitlement Order, and Payment Order (see EXHIBIT I), being autonomous, in Fact and in Nature [under Diplomatic Protest] (see EXHIBIT J); and does Notice the Entire World that this NON-WITHHOLDING FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST, established under the Jurisdiction of the VENUE AND JURISDICTION STATEMENT above and under the Jurisdiction of Emperor Moytoy and King George II in 1730 A.D. (see EXHIBIT M, N, and J) is a political construction where Grantor and Beneficiary are the same entity and makes this Trust active in nature by Grantors Pledge of Polity Will (see EXHIBIT U) with capacity to function as Trustee of, over, and above the corporate fiction of all agencies of de facto government of the UNITED STATES as they (said agencies) pertain to the Vessel, and, does NOTICE the entire World that Grantor is Injured, without Cause, with Damages NOT RECOVERABLE through conventional legal channels (see EXHIBIT V), and, does have Right of Restoration and Postliminy (see EXHIBIT W); and, does demand full and honest disclosure (see EXHIBIT X); and, does explicitly rebut any assumption of being a Franchise (see EXHIBIT Y); and, does hereby Grant, Nominate, and Appoint Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer and her successors and assigns with the segregated safekeeping of records under the delivery of and bearing the unique identifier of (Reg Mail) #1111 2222 3333 4444 5555 and commands the action, response, and answer be remitted in appropriate kind after particular type and makes these further statements, to wit: WHEREAS Grantor has no record or verified evidence, and believes that none exists, that sufficiently demonstrates probable cause to believe:

1)

That a bank emergency was not declared on March 9, 1933 by President Roosevelt because of the insolvency of the United States; and,

2) That gold was not transferred from U.S. citizens to the UNITED STATES by Executive Order 6102 on May 1, 1933; and, 3) That indistinct and confusing communication and enforcement of Codes, Statutes, and Regulations was not imposed, with unfavorable results effectuating Injuries with resultant Damages, on those People commonly referred to as United States of America Citizens and States National Citizens, who, in reality, are Free Inhabitants, hereinafter referred to as Free Inhabitants, (See EXHIBIT H) whereby Free Inhabitants were unduly forced, under vi et armis and threat of imprisonment, to surrender their personal and private gold reserves under the same Statutes and Regulations imposed upon U.S. citizens (see EXHIBIT H); and,

4) That charges of treason and theft were not filed by Congressman Louis T. McFadden on May 23, 1933 concerning said transfer; and, 5) That to mitigate said charges, Congress did not pass House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933, P.L. 73-10, and 48 stat 48, Ch 112, 113 to provide to Free Inhabitants the right of setoff of all debt obligations as the consideration for said transfer; and, That TITLE 15 - Sec. 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty does not say, Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal; and,

6) That said transfer did not create a trust(s), hereinafter Trust or Trusts; and, 7)

8) That the right of setoff of all debt obligations is not the res of said Trust; and, 9) That said transfer did not make Free Inhabitants the Grantors of said Trust; and, 10) That said transfer did not make Free Inhabitants the Beneficiaries of said Trust(s) through his own Agent; and, 11) That Grantor is not fully Emancipated and fully released from control of any/all guardian(s); therefore, all property, Trust(s), and endowment(s) are to be released to Grantor; and, 12) That Grantor is now, nor that Grantor has ever been, a/any threat to a/any Diplomatic or Political Protectee; and, 13) That other, various, and sundry Trusts were not created by the Application for Birth Certificate (or, Certificate of Live Birth), Application for Social Security Administration coverture, Application for Marriage License(s), submission and response to Military Draft, and Application to multiple and various Agencies (vehicle registration, driver licensing, voter registration, etc.); and, 14) That Grantors Christian Appellation is not Private Property with exclusive Rights to said Name; and, 15) That all resultant NAME(S) are not manifestations of placement of label(s) onto Trust(s) directly resultant of and connected to Grantors Christian Appellation; and,

16) That the Office of Parson (See EXHIBIT G) was not established in antiquity on behalf of Grantor; and, 17) That Grantor, as Progenitor, did not begin Grantors WILL at conception; and, 18) That Grantors WILL was not fully realized in Birth on (birthday) September 09, 1944; at this Location upon the soil: (grid coordinates) 36.9800-92.5978; and, 19) That Grantors Mother (and, Father) were not the ORIGINAL Grantor of an associated Grantor Trust by way of Application for Registering of Live Birth, which became a Warehouse Receipt or Trust Receipt (See EXHIBIT E); and, 20) That Grantor does not hold and own Inherent Rights by way of Progeny (One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant); and, 21) That Inherent Rights can devolve to a body politic via a corporation (Rights devolve to human beings (body politic) through and by way of a Trust); and, 22) That the Certificate of Live Birth Number 123-45-678900 (Annexed as EXHIBIT A) is not evidence of title to property being held by Trustee that is effectively connected to said Trust; and, 23) That the Social Security Number 123-45-6789 (Annexed as EXHIBIT B) is not evidence of title to property being held by Trustee that is effectively connected to said Trust; and. 24) That DD form 214 with Service Number US 56 123 456 (Annexed as EXHIBIT C) did not establish a Trust upon Honorable Discharge; and, 25) That, upon maturity at age twenty one (21) years, that Grantor did not obtain Full and Unalienable Rights, to Grantors Loan of Assets under Doctrine of Usufruct and that any UNITED STATES attachment(s) to Grantors Assets were not, technically, terminated, with all Benefits and Accruals of Interest to be reverted back to Grantor; and, 26) That Rescission of Atfreightment is not herein fully invoked by Principal CHARTERPARTY (Blacks 1st), wherein [the Master of] the Vessel and all principal parts thereof are removed from contract of merchandising or conveyance of goods; and, 27) That Grantor did not acquire, at mature age of twenty one (21) years, total and full rights to Trusts Resultant, without necessity of the Guardian of the Court; and, 28) That Grantors Commercial Character is not the vehicle, or device, of Extensions of Credit as referenced at TITLE 18 - PART I - CH 42 - Sec. 894; and, 29) That Transfer of Special Drawing Rights and/or IMF quotas are not directly proportional to and/or directly connected to the Registration of Birth Certificates in/through the Department of Commerce in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, to create and establish a Trust with Grantor as Beneficiary; and, 30) That the President is not the ONLY Executive Trustee of all Resultant Trusts associated with Grantors Certificate of Live Birth; and, 31) That Grantors acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section 1), is not a Binding Agreement to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee; and,

32) That the Presidents oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the President (executive trustee) has with Grantor and the people (He does not have an oath of office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a Constitutional Oath); and, 33) That the President is Lawfully Seated in full capacity to function as Executive Trustee; and, 34) That transfers of Agency(ies) did not make the United States Congress, hereinafter Trustee, the Trustee of said Trusts; and, 35) That the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter IRS, is not an agent of Trustee; and, 36) That the failure of IRS to ledger upon receipt the indorsed obligations of any Free Inhabitant as a right of setoff does not constitute a breach of said Trust; and, 37) That there is not a record of the failure, and notice thereof, of IRS to ledger upon receipt the indorsed obligations of the Beneficiary as a right of setoff; and, 38) That the Beneficiary is not a Free Inhabitant; and, 39) That said record of failure of proper ledgering by IRS is not sufficient prima facie evidence of breach of said Trust(s); and, 40) That said record of failure is not available upon request from IRS or Beneficiary; and, 41) That said record of failure is not sufficient cause for Grantor to terminate and liquidate said trust(s); and, 42) That Grantor cannot, for said cause, command Treasurer to terminate and liquidate said Trust(s) immediately; and, 43) That IRS is not required to cure said breach within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command and provide evidence of same to Beneficiary; and, 44) That Grantor does not have the Right to declare All Bets Are Off! and remove himself from all Tontine, Maritime, and other wagering and gambling schemes and declare himself Exempt from prosecution and harassment by partakers and participants of said wagering and gambling establishments; and, 45) That Grantor does not have the Right to declare and demand Cash-Out Doctrine of Law in an immediate and/or timely manner. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Treasurer is hereby and herein directed by Grantor to accordingly: 1) Terminate and liquidate Trust upon Grantors Surrender of Trust Receipt, which is identified as Certificate of Live Birth Number 123-45-678900, and return to Grantor a statement of account thereof within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command (SEE EXHIBIT A); and, Terminate and liquidate the effectively-connected Trust identified by Social Security Number 123-45-6789 (SEE EXHIBIT B) and return to Grantor a statement of account thereof within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command; and,

2)

3) 4)

Terminate and liquidate any/all Trust(s) identified by United States Department of Defense form DD 214 (SEE EXHIBIT C) with identifying number US 56 123 456; and, Terminate and liquidate any/all Trust(s) identified by United States Department of Education (see EXHIBIT D); and,

5) Make provisions that said liquidations must settle all past and current debt obligations, secret liens, secret bonds, and Maritime liens associated with said trusts, whether foreign, domestic, local, state or federal and whether they be in the nature of Admiralty, Civil, Criminal, Statutory, or other de facto jurisdiction; and, 6) Treasurer is herein directed to pay all Service Claims accrued when acting as fiduciary to the Trust(s) (SEE 31 U.S.C. 3713 and P.L. 97-258); and, 7) Provide Grantor with all necessary documents, certificates, instruments, forms, papers and procedures to effect said liquidations; and,

8) Transfer Grantors portion of the Public Debt as Special Deposit and any, and all, remaining proceeds and interest from all related usury, into account listed under the CONCLUSION section of this document ; and, 9) Charge all Transfer Fees and Administration Fees to said account listed under the CONCLUSION section of this document and deduct same to show balance paid; and,

10) Notify all subordinate agencies, acting as Inland Pirates, operating on letters of marque and reprisal, (Referenced at Point 28 above - Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate means), to cease and desist any and all acts and actions against, concerning, or involving Grantor that might, in any way, restrict Grantors Right of Safe Passage upon the Common Way and Post Roads of all Territories within The United States of America [INLAND PIRACY DEFINED: The piracy laws are found at: 18 USC, Sec. 1650-1660, 1652 is piracy by citizens, as well as treason. This is enacted law, not under color of law as Title 42 USC. Sec. 1652: Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life]; and, 11) Contact Grantor at youremail@gmail.com or 1-417-123-4567 if further information is needed to carry out these instructions. CONCLUSION There is an underlying and dominant fact that: all money of Exchange in circulation is counterfeit and bears no Value; and, even the stealing of such is not punishable by law; and, the usage of such money is contraband and taxable as wagering and gambling; and, because Necessary and Needful issues of survival have created exigent circumstances upon Grantor causing the immediate and continued use of unlawful money; and, there is no real value to any amount of said money and bank notes ( See EXHIBIT L Demand for Exchange of Value); Therefore, Grantor demands Consideration of True, Real, and Equal Value in exchange for Grantors Extension of Credit (referenced at Title 18, Sec. 894) when Grantor allowed access to Grantors

Registry of Live Birth, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (the creation of a vessel and device in commerce), which was loaned to the enterprise located within the corporate structure of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION located within the geographical parameters of the City of Washington, District of Columbia. Grantor, also, claims all assets ledgered within any Contra-Asset accounts, adverse accounts, inverse accounts and other Book Entry Only ledger accounts that are, or may have been, charged to/against Grantor through any source and recorded in New York City, or other place or location. GRANTOR COMPREHENDS that there MAY be a direct connection between State Secrets and Trade Secrets and wishes to Honor said Secrets in Harmony within commerce and trade in the nature of a Protective Order, referenced as per: State Secret - Black's 8th. A government matter that would be a threat to the natural defense or diplomatic interests of the United States if revealed; information possessed by the government and of a military or diplomatic nature, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest; And, Trade Secret - The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which has been adopted by approximately 46 states as the basis for trade secret law. "A trade secret, as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1839(3) (A), (B) (1996), has three parts: (1) information; (2) reasonable measures taken to protect the information; and (3) which derives independent economic value from not being publicly known;" And, The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1831-1839), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity, the first, 18 U.S.C. 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes. GRANTOR WISHES AND INTENDS to function in the Private Realm without intrusion into the Public Sector as much as is reasonably possible; therefore, Grantor, herein and hereby, does Revoke, Rescind, and Annul (or, make invalid) any/all assumed, presumed, implied, and/or express Powers of Attorney over all acts and actions done by Grantor in the Public Sector, ab initio and nunc pro tunc, of necessity and without recourse, to include, but not be limited to, Travel on Post Roads and the Common Way and un-restricted use of any medium of currency imposed upon Grantor; therefore, Grantor moves Treasurer to utilize Interlocking Directorates in the nature of fiduciary and administrator and effectuate NOTICE to all related and inter-related agencies that Grantor is NOT an Enemy of the State; and that Grantor freely exercises his Right to Locomotion and Travel (SEE EXHIBIT D), at His own discretion and pleasure; and, further,

that said Agency remit to Grantor a statement of acknowledgement thereof within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command. Rosa Gumataotao Rios, in your Personal Capacity as an employee that has received remuneration for services rendered, or to be rendered, and in your Official Capacity as Treasurer of the United States of America, you are herein directed to perform all stipulated and enumerated Duties and Obligations as made specific in NOTICE OF ABATEMENT above; and, further, you are CHARGED with these instructions to Liquidate the Enumerated Estates of JOHN QUINCY JONES, as Transmitter of Stored Value (31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart A, 103.11), and place all assets into Deposit Account: ______________ Rosa Gumataotao Rios, your successors and/or assigns, are authorized as Fiduciary to Grantors Account(s) to adjust, file, include, or otherwise make provision for internal book(s) and ledger(s) management, including, but not limited to form(s) 1099C, 1099A, 1040V or other payment voucher, all other pertinent forms, et cetera, to balance your books and ledgers and show Grantors portion of the Public Debt as forgiven and/or discharged and satisfy General Accounting Office requirements. UPON COMPLETION OF ABOVE COMMANDS, Grantor agrees and pledges Fidelity to His Commercial Character with intent to never again dishonor the Creator or man by charging for labor or delaying payment for debts; further, Grantor agrees, by this pledge, to Indemnify and Hold Harmless all former Trustee(s), Handler(s), and Manager(s) for any/all injuries and/or damages done to Grantor in the past; and Grantor pursues Harmony in commerce that continuity may not be impeded; therefore, Grantor says: I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, in this Affidavit and Declaration, instituted and established after date of majority and re-affirmed on the first above mentioned date, being competent to take control of my own financial affairs of estate and able to honor all claims, do fully accept all charges and allegations placed to/against my account(s) and do declare under penalty of perjury, without United States, to be a Statesman of the Missouri Republic and a Statesman of the Aniyvwiya (I suggest you use Cherokee) Nation, Category Four (4) [non-treaty] Aboriginal North American Natives. By Grantor, Date/Seal Under duress per minas, ephemeral and desultory codes, statutes, and regulations with protest affirmed, without United States. JURAT State of ____________________ ) ss )

County of ___________________

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 20____, by the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me. ______________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: ___________ (seal)

John-Quincy: of the Jones Family/Clan - Progenitor LIEN CREDITOR, LIEN CLAIMANT c/o 123 West Columbus Street Somewhere, Missery [12345]

"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." - George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

***********************************************

SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS AND DIRECTIVES This Brief is a Summary of Statements, Claims, and Directives attributed to the various Parties effected by acts and actions, or the lack thereof, made particular to, and within, attached and annexed Documents and Supporting Documents, summarized, to wit:

ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, Statement from Public Debt: Private Asset, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in January 1999, on page four (4) under Debt as an Asset it states: The bank owes us the money that is in our account. for every debt incurred someone acquires a financial asset of equal value. Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of the governments debt is some-ones asset . Corporations, brokerage houses, bond-trading firms, foreign national, and U.S. citizens, both here and abroad, are all willing to loan money to the U.S. government. They view the loan as an investment, an asset that increases their wealth. [Emphasis added for clarity, End of quote] ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, an act of perfidy is a deliberate breach of faith and a calculated violation of trust; also, it is treachery and the act or an instance of treachery. ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, "Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto." MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305. Therefore, by way of objection, Grantor, herein and forever after, demands liquidation and complete transfer of Grantors Assets held In Trust at/in the various Contra Asset, Inverse, Adverse, and/or other accounts that are under the regulation and control of the Treasurer of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury and held in the name of JOHN QUINCY JONES (or, any derivatives of said name) and any/all vessel(s) with numbered accounts that are derivative of Application for Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate) and/or any/all social security program(s), as made more specific in Main Document titled CHARGING ORDER, WILL, and TESTAMENT, be immediately transferred into Grantors Trust Account located at/in FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA, Legacy Treasury Direct (routing number) 0310-9999-6, Account ___________ in the form of Treasury Obligations, of Grantors choosing, that are NOT Federal Reserve Notes. Grantor, herein, directs Treasurer to deduct any fees that may be applicable from Grantors Estate and make entry on ledger of such deductions. F.M. (famous mark) _______________________

Augus 18, 2010

Douglas Duff: deus.juvat.duff@gmail.com

Corporate Law Go Back

Related in this Category

Can a Land Patent SAVE YOUR HOME? - Even if you are NOT in foreclosure? Regain control of your land through a Land Patent process HUGE LAND PATENT VICTORY IN WISCONSIN FREE STATE TODAY!!! OPEN LETTER TO AGENTS OF THE CROWN AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH