Friday, May 31, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Congressional Testimony
Below are the supporting Exhibits that accompany the typed Congressional Testimony I prepared for my July 20, 2012 interview with Bill Windsor in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Learn more about Bill Windsor and his soon coming documentary at Lawless America.
This Adam Savage video about the RFID has been inserted for emphasis.
. . . the Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of a Prize Court wherein it states:
. . . There is a practice of long standing for belligerents, at the outbreak of war, to enact prize law through statutory legislation; such enactments are presumed to be declaratory of international law but are, in any event, binding on the courts.
In the 20th century, unrestricted sea warfare involving the destruction of merchant shipping has reduced the role of prize courts. The United States has held no prize courts since 1899 for the additional reason of its more liberal policy of requisitioning (i.e., “Taking”) foreign vessels with compensation rather than appropriating them as prizes.
In closing I ask:
Because Article 1, Section 12 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania states:
“No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority.”
Who or What is the “authority” that has the “power of suspending laws” greater than, or equal to those exercised by Pennsylvania Legislators?
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2
.jpg)
Exhibit 3
Additional information:
Supporting evidence: Due Process Defenders.
Web Page 1: http://heros-heroines.blogspot.com/2010/01/irredentists-controversy.html
To the left is a copy of an "ORDER" (06-SA-64, . . . ) that appears to be crafted directly from Chapter 9 of Ashley S. Lipson's training manual for attorneys, Guerrilla Discovery. (For the definition of Guerrilla, click here.) The order was imposed by Lackawanna County (PA) Court of Common Pleas Judge, Barrasse inconsistent with the Court of Common Pleas Local Rules 128 and 130, and without showing "good cause" with regard to its "relevance" to the "controversy" before him.
It is apparent that Judge Barrasse had not considered section 9.54 of Lipson's manual wherein it lists 16 grounds for "Objecting to the Examination" and includes Justice Douglas' landmark decision in Schlagenhauf v. Holder, i.e.; "And a doctor for a fee can easily discover something wrong with any patient . . . ".
Rather than simply stating the validity of the remaining six (6) charges that were predicated on the primary charges previously acquitted by Judge Geroulo on August 31, 2006 (see "ORDER" 06 S 64 to the right), Judge Barrasse had me imprisoned for four (4) days in the Lackawanna County Prison and on 7/8/2008 Judge Barrasse waived the fines and costs that was always within his power to waive, and on 1/13/2009, in a stealth move, simply swept the whole matter "under the rug" by falsifying the records with a "Penalty Satisfied" so that the casual observer would presume that I had participated in his decision. (See Trezevant v. City of Tampa 741 F.2d 336.)
Like Judges Sean McGraw and Vito Geroulo, Judge Barrasse (again) ignored both lawful and legal basic rules of procedure to examine the substantive evidence presented and require statutory claim to the contrary. By way of a Petition for Review I ask(ed) only that the court render right ruling consistent with the Oath of Office that they and their predecessors had taken. Offset of each charge is - and has been - conditioned upon substantive statutory proof of the validity of each of the instant claims.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the United States' and its governments have become occupied by a power foreign to the American People. Absent any proof to the contrary, I have come to believe that members of the Democrat and Republican parties are duty bound to legislate 13th Amendment 'voluntary servitude' on behalf of the owners of the Federal Reserve. The laws that they make are promulgated to 'duly convict of crime' any American who chooses not to volunteer their property and labor into the jurisdiction of this oligarchy of plutocrats.
So I ask:
1. Because a duly authorized Title 4 U.S.C., Section 1, 2, 3 American Flag - the flag to which I pledged my allegiance - was captured and not returned by City of Wilkes-Barre (PA) police on February 24, 2005 and City of Carbondale police on February 1, 2006; Are municipal police officers violating their oaths of office when they willfully collude with the seditious guerrilla activities of a belligerent occupying power? Or, Are municipal officers/agents "in fact" the willing hirelings of a belligerent occupying power? Is the prison system in the U.S. essentially a gulag?2. Because each and every Federal Reserve note is 'debt based' and conditional upon the 'good faith and credit of the American People' (including me); How can any American be compelled to pay an alleged "debt" with a Federal Reserve created 'debt instrument' to which they, the American People, themselves are the Creditor, i.e., the "holder in due course"? Have judges acquiesced to legislated doublespeak (and peer pressure) that was designed to entrap American men and women into statutory "peonage" in which, if they do not comply voluntarily, they can be held "in contempt of court" and condemned to debtors prison?
3. Is there no judge or legislator who will 'stand in the gap' on behalf of an American who, as a matter of conscious, refuses to acquiesce his or her property and/or labor to a foreign power? Or, have all become puppets of a belligerent occupying power?
See U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare
4. And, finally, shouldn't judges and legislators, who have been elected to preserve and defend the unalienable economic and property Rights of the people they were elected to serve, care that the Clerk of the Courts for Lackawanna County is not even in Pennsylvania? That the Clerk of the Courts for Lackawanna County is located in New York; a jurisdiction foreign to Pennsylvania.
Document 1: 
1 - Seizure - 2006 - Due Process Defendant.pdf
1 - Seizure - 2006 - Due Process Defendant.pdf
Herein shown is one of the better examples of the types of legislative doublespeak that are eroding our perceived liberties.
The application, pictured to the right, is the reverse side of a Pennsylvania 2003 "Certification of Birth". The application reveals our part in the perpetuation of a global business scheme that was in effect long before the colonies were chartered.
Notice that the application (second paragraph) is to "correct the certified copy issued" whereby the father and mother swears by oath in the presence of a Notary that their child is a "SUBJECT" (second line, on the left side of the application).
If the corrections are not made by the parents, the "SUBJECT'S SIGNATURE" is required (also under oath) on the 3rd line from bottom on the right side of the form.
Now, as all law abiding, good parents who love their children, know, the government mandates education, and they must provide a "birth certificate" to enroll their child in a public school. Notice how Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads in Section 1:
Uniformity of Taxation:
Now, as all law abiding, good parents who love their children, know, the government mandates education, and they must provide a "birth certificate" to enroll their child in a public school. Notice how Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads in Section 1:
Uniformity of Taxation:
If you have access to a Pennsylvania 'Certification of Birth' hold it up to the light and notice the 'chain link' watermark."All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws."
