The Redemption process is in many ways hard to believe. But one thing that you need to understand is that it is the Straw-man/Debtor that all the fines, fees, and taxes are laid against. It is the straw man that some 'claim' is filed upon. But that 'entity' is artificial! And ‘he’ doesn’t have any brains, hands or fingers to write the check. And though it’s not you, you have the obligation to ensure the tax gets paid, ‘err’ I mean discharged!
By and through the Redemption 'process,' you could take control of your trust/corporation/straw man by filing a UCC 1 into your Secretary of States Office. You get a 'new' social security card (same number) for your straw man and make your initial deposit via your Birth Certificate (at $100,000,000.00) into your Direct Treasury Account .Now you are ready to deal with all those fines, fees, taxes, complaints, 1040's, any and all the other presentments from 'your' government servants.
But first you must fully understand the process of the transaction(s) and how and why they work.
It is my opinion; that one who does the initial steps and understands the 'process,' has just been elevated up beyond the level of State governments (i.e., sovereignty of the constituency) and Banks (i.e., creditor). For you hold in your hand the power to do the Transaction(s) via the Treasury, in a more perfected quasi-sovereign capacity! That's a lot of responsibility! Therefore, you had better respect the process and do it right. You still must do your own research, read and study. The concept, the principles and the information is available. But there is much learning and work to do.
Federal Children/through fraud and deception the federal corperation thinks they own you and your children.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:
I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.
By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.
(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.
(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.
The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:
I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.
By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.
(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.
(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.
The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........
www.stopthepirates.blogspot.com
Birth certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse receipts.”
Birth certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse
receipts.” The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at
§7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial
paper and transactions, which parallel a birth certificate are:
Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new securities.
This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every citizen of the United States/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.
Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person. Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim exclusive title to the legal person created thereby.
- the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored…(residence)
- the date of issue of the receipt…..(“Date issued”)
- the consecutive number of the receipt…(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)
- a description of the goods or of the packages containing them…(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)
- the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent…(municipal clerk or state registrar’s signature)
- Birth certificates now appear to at least qualify as “warehouse receipts” under the Uniform Commercial Code. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:
- 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.”
Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new securities.
This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every citizen of the United States/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.
Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person. Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim exclusive title to the legal person created thereby.
Chart of Who "Owns" the Federal Reserve
Based on the 1976 and 1983 charts from the House Banking Committee Staff Report, the ownership of the Federal Reserve System, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is structured as follows:
Summary of Ownership: The Federal Reserve is owned by private banks, primarily in New York, controlled by families like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Lehmans, Warburgs, and Schiffs through firms such as J.P. Morgan Co., Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and Brown Brothers Harriman. The Rothschilds, via the Bank of England, exert ultimate control, having orchestrated the Federal Reserve Act and secured stock ownership in 1914. These families and firms maintain influence through interlocking directorates with major corporations and banks, ensuring the Federal Reserve serves their interests.Americans’ Civil Status: From “There” to “Here” (1787–2005)The APFN document describes a transformation of Americans’ civil status from sovereign individuals under a constitutional republic to enslaved debtors in a bankrupt corporate system, facilitated by the Federal Reserve’s creation and a secret legal oath. Here’s the progression:
Entity/Family | Role in Federal Reserve Ownership | Key Connections |
|---|---|---|
N.M. Rothschild, London | Central hub of control via the Bank of England, directing U.S. banking through subsidiaries. | Bank of England, J.P. Morgan Co., Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Brown, Shipley & Co. |
J.P. Morgan Co. | Rothschild representative in New York; drafted Federal Reserve Act at 1910 Jekyll Island Conference; purchased controlling shares in Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914). | Morgan Grenfell, Chase National Bank, Guaranty Trust, Morgan Stanley Co. |
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. | Rothschild representative; key player in Federal Reserve Act creation; holds controlling stock in Federal Reserve Bank of New York. | Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn, Lehman Brothers |
Rockefeller Family | Controls Federal Reserve through Chase Manhattan Corp. and interlocks with major banks and corporations. | David Rockefeller, Standard Oil, General Motors, Equitable Life, Chase National Bank |
J. Henry Schroder Banking Co. | Rothschild-linked firm; holds influence via New York and London operations; key in financing global projects. | Baron Bruno Von Schroder, Sir Gordon Richardson, Bank of England, Bechtel Corp. |
Brown Brothers Harriman | Linked to Rothschilds via Sun Life Assurance; holds Federal Reserve stock through New York banks. | National City Bank, National Bank of Commerce, Rockefeller Foundation |
Lehman Brothers | Controls Federal Reserve stock through New York banks; tied to Kuhn, Loeb & Co. | Herbert Lehman, Irving Lehman, Solomon Loeb |
Warburg Family | Influences Federal Reserve through Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and M.M. Warburg (Hamburg). | Paul Warburg, James Paul Warburg, Bank for International Settlements |
Schiff Family | Controls Federal Reserve stock via Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; linked to Rothschilds. | Jacob Schiff, Mortimer Schiff, John Schiff |
New York Banks | Hold controlling shares in Federal Reserve regional banks, particularly New York. | National City Bank, Chase National Bank, Hanover National Bank, First National Bank |
- “There” (1787): Sovereign Individuals Under Common Law
In 1787, Americans were natural persons with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, protected by the Constitution and common law courts. They operated as sovereigns, free from corporate or admiralty jurisdiction, with no obligation to foreign creditors. - Federal Reserve Act and Corporate Control (1913)
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, orchestrated by Rothschild-linked firms (J.P. Morgan Co., Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), surrendered U.S. monetary control to private bankers. The APFN claims this act was a treasonous surrender of sovereignty, enslaving Americans to a “money swindle” where banks issue worthless notes backed by citizens’ credit, forcing repayment in labor and property. The charts confirm the Rothschilds and their allies (Rockefellers, Warburgs) as the controlling creditors. - Geneva Conventions and Bankruptcy Declaration (1930–1933)
In 1930, the U.S. declared bankruptcy at the Geneva Conventions, a fact hidden from public records. Franklin Roosevelt formalized this in 1933 through the Banking Holiday, gold confiscation, and Executive Orders (6073, 6102, 6111, 6260), as confirmed by House Joint Resolution 192 and Perry v. U.S. (1935). The corporate U.S. (“US Inc.”), headquartered in Washington, D.C., became a debtor to international bankers, with Americans’ labor and property pledged as collateral via documents like Social Security registrations and tax forms. - Erie R.R. v. Thompkins and UCC (1938–1960s)
The 1938 Erie R.R. v. Thompkins decision shifted all U.S. courts to equity courts administering bankruptcy under the UCC, which became the “law of the land” by the 1960s. The Lawyer’s Secret Oath, taken by American Bar Association members (a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain, linked to the Rothschilds per the charts), binds lawyers and judges to uphold this bankruptcy, conceal the true creditors (international bankers), and bar pre-1938 case law that supported constitutional rights. Courts now treat all cases—traffic tickets, taxes, property disputes—as debtor-creditor disputes under admiralty law. - Social Security and Implied Contracts (1935–2005)
Social Security numbers and tax forms (e.g., W-4, 1040) are voluntary agreements that trick Americans into pledging their labor to the bankruptcy debt. These documents, under the UCC, act as promissory contracts, making individuals debtors to the international bankers. The secret oath ensures judges and lawyers never reveal the creditors or the bankruptcy nature of proceedings, maintaining the fraud. - “Here” (2005): Enslaved Debtors in a Corporate System
By 2005, Americans are “citizens of the United States,” legal fictions in a bankrupt US Inc., owned by international bankers led by the Rothschilds. They are permanent debtors, with their labor, property, and lives pledged to repay a fraudulent corporate debt. Courts, operating as “Star Chambers” under admiralty law, administer bankruptcy without transparency, protected by the secret oath. Americans have no access to common law remedies, and their signatures on everyday documents (e.g., driver’s licenses, tax returns) perpetually bind them to this system.
- Banker Control: The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and allied families own the Federal Reserve through New York banks, using it to control U.S. monetary policy and enslave citizens as debtors. The charts’ interlocks show their influence extends to corporations, ensuring economic dominance.
- Legal System Fraud: The Lawyer’s Secret Oath ensures that the legal system upholds the bankruptcy, concealing the international bankers’ role. Cases like Mr. Sweet’s, where individuals use UCC-1 forms to claim creditor status, are suppressed to prevent precedent, as the oath mandates loyalty to the creditors.
- Perpetual Debt: Americans’ signatures on government forms create implied contracts under the UCC, pledging their assets to the bankers. The secret oath prevents courts from identifying the true creditor, denying Americans the ability to challenge their debtor status.
- Foreign Influence: The Rothschilds’ control via the Bank of England and the American Bar Association’s ties to the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain indicate foreign domination, aligning with the APFN’s claim of a “New World Order” absorbing America into a global commercial government.
- Awareness: Recognize the Federal Reserve’s ownership by international bankers and the secret oath’s role in perpetuating the bankruptcy fraud.
- Withdraw Consent: Sign documents with reservations like “without prejudice” or “all rights reserved” (UCC 1-207, 1-103) to avoid pledging to the bankruptcy.
- File UCC-1 Forms: Claim creditor status over personal property or real estate, as Mr. Sweet did, to encumber assets and prevent seizure by the state or bankers.
- Challenge Courts: Demand that judges identify the true creditor and nature of proceedings, though the secret oath ensures resistance.
- Spread Awareness: Distribute the “Public Servant” letter to officials and media to expose the fraud and demand accountability.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)