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."
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Is "Reconciliation" the Solution to the Debt Crisis?
The first part of this post is from the "Ask Marilyn" syndicated column.
Ask Marilyn: Is This the Solution to the Debt Crisis? | Parade.com Gary Dalessandro of Sharpsville, Pa., writes: What's the solution to this problem?
Ask Marilyn: Is This the Solution to the Debt Crisis? | Parade.com Gary Dalessandro of Sharpsville, Pa., writes: What's the solution to this problem?
A tourist stops at a small hotel, puts a $100 bill on the counter, and goes to inspect a room. The owner takes the bill and rushes off to pay the butcher, to whom he owes $100. The butcher races to his wholesaler and pays off his own $100 debt. The wholesaler hurries to the farmer and gives him $100 for the pigs he bought. The farmer hands over $100 to the party planner who set up his bachelor bash. The party planner heads to the hotel to pay the $100 she owes for the party room and lays the bill on the counter. At that point, the tourist returns to the front desk, says that the room is unsatisfactory, picks up the $100, and departs. The tourist has his money back, and everyone else is $100 ahead by reducing his or her debt by that amount. Could this be the answer to the debt crisis?
Marilyn responds:
Can you determine what happened, readers? The answer follows:
Actually, everyone stayed exactly the same. For example, the farmer was owed $100 by someone, but he also owed $100 to someone else. The payments canceled one another out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Notwithstanding the writer's use of the word "bill" for "dollars"; is Marilyn correct?
What would happen if every "Taxpayer" inspected the cartel's business and came to understand that it is they who are the "holder in due course" of the funds that are used by this cartel?
How would this cartel's creditors satisfy payment?
For a smooth transition; check out the facts and become an informed activist.
Cyber classes are available at
Sherman Institute.
Friday, April 20, 2012
The "Industrial Revolution"?
Perhaps it's time for Historians to revisit the "Industrial Revolution".
Who profited?
Consider this graphic "Anthracite Combination" and the relationship Banks had with Railroads through their Directorships.
Who profited?
Consider this graphic "Anthracite Combination" and the relationship Banks had with Railroads through their Directorships.
For more information about the railroads and banks visit:
The Dictionary of American History; Railroads, The ERI (Executive Intelligence Review), and scan for "Director" in The History of The First National Bank of Scranton.
If this is a topic that interests you, search www.archive.org.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
MANY A TRUTH IS TOLD IN JEST
Poor Mitt Romney.
It must (indeed) be shameful for Romney to live off the dividends he receives from the stock portfolios he's accumulated in his management of human capital.
Folks!
It's not about "balancing the budget". It's about the Federal Reserve "reconciling the accounts" they have with their "Creditors"; i.e., the people of our nation.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Should the corporate United States and the State of Pennsylvania be dissolved?
(14) ``State'' means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
(15) ``United States'' means--
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
On page 31 of "CURRENT EVENTS", the "Condensed Weekly Newspapers that were used by Teachers in Public and Private Schools" during the 1932 - 1933 school term indoctrinated future generations of Americans to accept a corporate business model of governance.
Because anything other than full disclosure of the nature of a contract is illegal, fraudulent and unethical; and the etiology of a corporate structure of governance had not been fully disclosed (see BUSINESS-AS-USUAL STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING "THE CROWN" INVESTORS and their GLOBAL ANONYMITY) to its share and stock holders; and the acts of its directors and those in control have become illegal, oppressive and fraudulent; and, its assets have been misapplied and wasted, should not the corporation’s unhappy stock/shareholders have recourse to dissolution?
From Dissolution in PA —The Death Of A Pennsylvania Business Corporation:
. . . a shareholder or director may petition the court of common pleas to order the winding up and involuntary dissolution of the corporation if and only if one of the following is established:
The acts of the directors, or those in control of the corporation are illegal, oppressive or fraudulent and that it is beneficial to the interests of the shareholders that the corporation be wound up and dissolved;
The corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted, and it is beneficial to the interests of the shareholders that the corporation be wound up and dissolved; or
The directors are deadlocked in the direction of the management of the business and affairs of the corporation and the shareholders are unable to break the deadlock, such that irreparable injury to the corporation is being suffered or is threatened as a result.
In the absence of illegal or fraudulent activity, a misappropriation of assets to the detriment of one or more shareholders, or irreconcilable differences amongst the board of directors, the corporation’s unhappy shareholders may have no recourse but to suffer the perceived mismanagement or sell their stock, often at a tremendous loss.
Should the corporate United States and the State of Pennsylvania be dissolved? Here are examples of how some shareholders view the management of the business affairs of these 28 USC 3002 corporations.
Saturday, February 05, 2011
"PERSON" POWER: WHO'S IN CONTROL?
Regarding Unz & Co.
Unz & Co. has been setting the standard for compliance products and services since 1879. What is Unz & Company's relationship to the 28 USC 3002 (15) United States Corporation? What is Unz & Company's relationship to the 28 USC 3002 (14) State?
Some key terms from the Unz & Co. glossary are:
Harmonized System - Schedule of tariff nomenclature arranged in 6 digit codes allowing all participating countries to classify traded goods on a common basis. Beyond the 6 digit level, countries are free to introduce national distinctions for tariff or statistical purposes. This system will replace the Tariff Schedule of the United States (TSUS). The Harmonized System was implemented by the United States and other major GATT countries after Jan, 1. 1988. Additional countries are expected to be implementing the system subsequent to that date.
HTSUSA - Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. Annotated. The U.S. application of the Harmonized System for the classification of imported merchandise. The U.S. adheres to the international classification system to the six digit level and then adds four addition digits for rate of duty assignment and statistical purposes.
Marking (or marks) - Letters, numbers, and other symbols placed on cargo packages to facilitate identification.
Schedule B - Refers to Schedule B, Statistical Classification of Domestic and Foreign Commodities Exported from the United States . All commodities exported from the United States must be assigned a ten-digit Schedule B number. Note: the first 6 digits of the Schedule B number are harmonized.
Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) - Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), Department of the Treasury, implements and enforces financial and trade sanctions. FAC has the authority to include within the definition of the sanctioned government those individuals and entities that FAC has determined are owned by, controlled by, or acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the target government. Parties so identified are known as Specially Designated Nationals or SDNs. In practice, an SDN is a target government body, representative, intermediary, or front (whether overt or covert) that usually is located in a third country and functions as an extension of the sanctioned government. An SDN may also be a third-party company that otherwise becomes owned or controlled by the target government or that operates on its behalf. No criminal linkage is necessary. Ownership by, control by, acting on behalf of, or profiting from trade with the target government or country would suffice to qualify a person for designation.
Our mission is to provide fully compliant, timely products and services to U.S. companies that are involved in international trade or the transportation of dangerous goods. We will be the most informed and informative company in our field, and make full compliance available to every company regardless of size, through training, systems, or forms.
Our value will be found in the knowledge that Unz & Co. will serve as your source for compliance expertise, allowing you to maintain your focus on your core business.
You decide.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Have the American people been the unknowing victims of TREASONOUS FRAUD?
How important is an Oath of Office?
Were you, or are you now, in the U.S. military? Were you told that the U.S. or State you served was defined under Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (14)(15)?
(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
If you believe you've been a victim of a seditious or treasonous fraud your remedy may be found in the verbage of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b):
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
What is you plan?
