By: David-William | TLB Staff Writer
MOST STATE STATUTES ARE ACTUALLY US STATUTES
UNITED STATES INC. is a private corporation under U.N./I.M.F. organization. Who is writing all these Statutes and Codes? That would be all the Foreign Agent Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners/Brokers. The courts are foreign to you, but NOT if you’re acting as a U.S. citizen!
Who is really behind all these land grabs, and police murders? The Crown Banks and the B.A.R. They made sure to get all the necessary business done on the District of Columbia, to sucker you right in!
_______
“December 26, 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 ( Convention on Rights and Duties of States ) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all STATES under international law.”
“December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations.”
“22 Code on Federal Regulations/CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.”
“Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).”
“Title 22 USC (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.”
“Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.”
“Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state.”
“Title 28 USC 1602-1611 ( Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated.”
“July 27, 1868, 15 Statutes at Large Chapter 249 Section 1 “Acts Concerning American Citizens in a Foreign State,” expatriation, is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded, and is not met with an answer.”
“In 1933, elected officials and the alleged “country” have been given to the United Nations Government system. Under Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s Bill, SB2433, the Poverty Act of 2007, the UN military forces can step on American soil to confiscate weapons from U.S. citizens. Under the Bush Administration, B.A.R. Attorney General Ashcroft and Haliburton established FEMA Concentration Camps for U.S. citizens who refuse the new world order/one world government.”
That the International Organization Immunities Act of 12-9-1945 – – Congress relinquished every public office over to the UN. Local governments up to the president fall under UN jurisdiction. Congress gave the UN the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States.
“That the International Reorganization Rescind Act- Congress put this into form but they never took action to rescind the act. Fairly recently an Ohio judge filed suit claiming that Congress did not have the right to relinquish government authority over to the UN (a corporation or foreign country) and that the Congressional act was a constitutional violation because they didn’t put it to the States or the people to agree on it. In 2005 the US Supreme court declined to hear the case therefore all public offices are under UN jurisdiction & they are not American Citizens.”
“That the Oath of Office – Title 5 USC 331, 332, 333 backed up by Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations 92.12 – 92.31 and Title 8 USC, section 1481 – the public official relinquishes his national citizenship and are thus foreign agents as stipulated under Title 22 USC, chapter 11, section 611, loss of national citizenship – Public officials are no longer US Citizens, but rather are foreign agents and must register as such.”
“That Title 28 USC CHAPTER 176 – FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE.
The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.”
“That in 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.”
_______
As one can see above, U.S. is foreign, and the Communist/Dictator B.A.R. Courts are foreign, and they’re part of the London Lawyer’s Guild, in violation of the Constitution, which does not mean the second one that has all the “Amendments” beyond Article XIII, the Titles of Nobility Act.
There are only thirteen Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of 1788. The U.S. Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787, but signing wasn’t enough. It had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states before it became binding. That happened when New Hampshire ratified it on June 21, 1788. The people wanted nothing to do with it until the Bill of Rights, so after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, the machinery of state had been designed, but not yet tested and put to use. The provisions for management of foreign affairs would be put to the test in 1794, when the Senate had the opportunity to accept or reject the controversial treaty with Great Britain negotiated by John Jay.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government faced many challenges in conducting foreign policy, largely due to its inability to pass or enforce laws that individual states found counter to their interests. The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence, stipulated that debts owed by Americans to British subjects were to be honored, and also stipulated that former British loyalists could bring forth suits in U.S. courts to recover confiscated property. These provisions were unpopular and many states blocked their enforcement. This led to British refusal to vacate military forts in U.S. territory. Additionally, after the war, British traders flooded U.S. markets with British goods, to the detriment of American importers and manufacturers. The Confederation Congress lacked the authority to regulate this trade, and intrastate trade was further hampered by states’ own attempts to impose import duties on goods from elsewhere in the United States. Lastly, the Spanish Government, which controlled New Orleans, barred American ships from navigating the Mississippi River. Southern delegates to the Confederation Congress wanted to lift this ban, while coastal merchants, especially in the northeast, were willing to make concessions in exchange for a treaty with otherwise favorable commercial terms. The large majorities necessary for ratification of such measures under the Articles of Confederation often resulted in the deadlock along sectional lines between North and South.
In attempting to resolve such issues, as well as problems arising from the payment of debts from the Revolutionary War and other domestic issues, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created a model of government that relied upon a series of checks and balances by dividing federal authority between the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive branches of government. The framers of the Constitution had originally imagined a weak presidency and a strong legislature divided into a House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the Articles of Confederation, considerable minor paperwork had bogged down important business enough that legislators decided to establish an executive branch to deal with routine paperwork. When writing the Constitution, the framers expected the Senate to handle important issues, particularly the ratification of treaties, while the Executive would attend to matters of lesser consequence. However, as deliberations continued, the Executive branch acquired more power to deal with some of the issues that had been a source of sectional tension under the Articles of Confederation—and so the President acquired the authority to conduct foreign relations. The two-thirds clause for ratification of treaties in the Senate, as opposed to a simple majority, allowed the South a greater voice in these matters and assuaged concerns about the attempts to abandon navigation of the Mississippi.
Each of the original thirteen states in the United States was invited to ratify the Constitution created in Philadelphia in 1787. The Constitution specified that nine ratifications would be sufficient to consider the Constitution accepted.
Some states ratified quickly, others had to hold several conventions to accept the Constitution — though all eventually did. This page lists the votes of each state’s conventions.
Constitution to the states for debate and ratification.
December 7, 1787: Delaware ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against.
December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against.
December 18, 1787: New Jersey ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against.
January 2, 1788: Georgia ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against.
January 9, 1788: Connecticut ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against.
February 6, 1788: Massachusetts ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against.
March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against.
April 28, 1788: Maryland ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against.
May 23, 1788: South Carolina ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against.
June 21, 1788: New Hampshire ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. Minimum requirement for ratification met.
June 25, 1788: Virginia ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against.
July 26, 1788: New York ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against.
August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed.
November 21, 1789: North Carolina ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against.
May 29, 1790: Rhode Island ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against.
_______
THE TREATY OF PARIS/PEACE
The King severed the Charters for the Colonies after the War, leaving all men without a Ruler, therefore they were left as Sovereigns. The King merely morphed the Colonies into States, so then they could govern themselves, but he never relinquished control over the waterways.
“1783: The Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Versailles cements this arrangement splitting the land and sea jurisdictions between the States and the Federal Union and places King George III as Trustee of American interests on the “High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways” —which means he kept control of American international commerce. The new “Union” entity operating in the international Jurisdiction of the sea was always controlled by the British and it has always been the British Monarch’s responsibility as International Trustee to manage it and guarantee its proper operation. It has instead run amok for 150 years.”
___________________________________
Most State Statutes are Actually U.S. Statutes
Glenn removes all doubt in his explanation, below:
“All State Statutes involving Transportation, Financial Institutions, Educational Institutions, Healthcare Institutions, Taxation, and municipal corporations (governments) are actually U.S. statutes. All of this is coming from the United Nations.”
Glenn-Winningham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NigTJboBVzU&feature=youtu.be
Awareness of our captivity
Unfortunately, I am in a position where I must defend the contents of this Article for The Liberty Beacon, which I’m happy to do, but in this case, I’m forced to dignify the comment by Bill Muckler with a response.
First, the Title of the Article makes perfect sense as all the Statutes are basically intertwined with U.N. and I.M.F. international entities with the foreign U.S. corporation, and the featured Video with a description of the content.
Second, the grammar, as he indicates, is U.S. CODE, CODES OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and UCC, and appropriately labeled.
Third, his embarrassingly inaccurate comment could discourage the unsuspecting browser from reading the material, if it were not for the immediately previous comment by the first commenter.
One could only speculate whether Bill is of sound mind, or some advocate for the B.A.R. As the author, I must say that this Article is replete with quotes from actual historical documents, Congressional record, Federal Laws, and international treaties.
I have been studding Commerce Law for about 8 years so this article makes perfect sense to me. It takes lots of learning to overstand it.
None of this makes sense. It is totally unreadable. Nothing in the article tells me why the headline is valid. Gave me a headache. Poorly written with atrocious grammer. Perhaps the writer should get some sleep and start over to attempt to make a cogent argument.