Ron Paul Interviews Julian Assange: “Going After Wikileaks Because They Humiliated the CIA”

Wikileaks is being called a NON-STATE Intelligence Service.  Investigative Journalists investigating Human Right Crimes and analyzing it is called JOURNALISM.

By this new definition of “INTELLIGENCE SERVICES” as meaning “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,”  all news -e.g. Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, FOX News, CNN, RT, BBC, Al-Jeezira, etc- are Intelligence Services.

Investigative Journalists publish news publicly and use it for exposing criminal governmental service corporations.

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES keep the news private and use it for their own advantages.

For the reason that these NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, are INCORPORATED within a Parent governmental corporation, e.g. UNITED STATES INC, RUSSIA INC, ENGLAND INC, CHINA INC, etc, then these NEWS ORGANIZATIONS not reporting the full extent of governmental crimes for their own benefit would be thus a STATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.

Freedom of Speech -as defined by the Constitution- is about human speech.  However, moving from the Lawful system to the STATUTORY CORPORATE LEGAL FICTIONAL SYSTEM (with their own Incorporated Constitution from 1871, and Statutory Constitution from 1938), the Freedom of Speech has been re-defined as the “right to issue debt”, as per CITIZENS UNITED v F.E.C.  Debt is the only “freedom of speech” that there is within the legal system.  Everything is made into DEBT-EQUITY by attorneys world wide, and they simply assume that Corporate Personhood and/or DEBT can/will protect them from the obviousness of the human rights abuses of what debt actually is: SLAVERY.

The Attorneys for the “News Organizations” State Intelligence Services are provenly primarily working for THE STATE CORPORATION.  For this reason, all NEWS ORGANIZATION ATTORNEYS literally refuse to let anything TOO criminal to come out about attorneys lest it expose their position as colluding to keep news from the public.

Ron Paul Interviews Julian Assange: “Going After Wikileaks Because They Humiliated the CIA”

Mac Slavo    April 28th, 2017

wikileaks-insurance-leak-document-encrypted-si_-e1476470042793

Dr. Ron Paul puts things in perspective – the outlaw Julian Assange, and his often-targeted Wikileaks organization, are not a threat against national security, but an embarrassment to its many shady dealings.

via the Ron Paul Institute:

Wikileaks Founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange joins the Liberty Report to discuss the latest push by the Trump Administration to bring charges against him and his organization for publishing US Government documents. How will they get around the First Amendment and the Espionage Act? The US government and the mainstream media — some of which gladly publish Wikileaks documents — are pushing to demonize Assange in the court of public opinion. Wikileaks is registered as a 501(c)3 organization in the US. Find out more about the organization and how you can help: https://wikileaks.org/

Julian Assange Speaks Out: The War On The Truth

Read more:

Ron Paul Defends Assange: “Don’t Allow This President To Declare War On the Truth”

The Mystery of Wikileaks’ Cryptic “Vault 7”: Do You Know What This Means?

BREAKING: Julian Assange Suggests MURDERED DNC STAFFER Seth Rich Was Wikileaks Source: “We Have To Understand How High The Stakes Are In the United States”

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Math Illegal? Oregon Board criminalizing Freedom of Speech and Unlicensed “Practice of Engineering”

As a “Software Engineer”®©™ (at the Common Law; ®©™ as tongue in cheek), educated in a prestigious American university (equivalent to M.I.T. -by their standards-), working as a “software engineer” for high-end open-source web frameworks, many successful and still operating web projects, having been screwed by “worked for” banks, transnational conglomerate auction houses, fast paced business consulting firms, small business consulting, business development, and “self-employed” (and all of those under false pretenses of what debt as money is and is not; and unconscionable contracts with the UNITED STATES, INC)…  and every one of them hired me based upon the exercise of my (constitutionally) protected freedom of speech to say and write my prior job experience.

Would I be “practicing engineering” by saying and writing that software companies hire me as a “software engineer” without some legalized license to practice?  and without being “designated” as an “engineer”?

How is it that the word “engineer” has been “legalized”/ “legally defined” (which is merely a LEGAL FICTION) such that the statutory codes precludes the right to freedom of speech?

LEGAL FICTIONAn assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in FACT, is not the case, but that is made in the law [merely legalisms of fiction] to enable a court [-room, administrative court, debt collectors] to equitably [by debt!] resolve [because it was already solved] a matter before it. [the matter existed before the debt, making the matter superior to the debt; but in the LEGAL SYSTEM debt is sovereign by definition!]

BTW: Sovereign is legally defined as:    2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst.282.  The “BODY of the PEOPLE” are all ARTIFICIAL PERSON corporations OWNED by the STATE (CORPORATIONS).  The Artificial PERSONS corporations [legal presences that “represent” us in the system] are insurance franchises backed by DEBT.  Birth Certificates make up the TRUST that contain the debt.  The California Vital Records BANK NOTE SPECIALIST has said by phone, “it [the birth certificate] wouldn’t be a BANK NOTE without the BAR CODE!”  So the “BODY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES INCORPORATED” are literally DEBT accounting line items as negotiable instruments via Birth Certificates.  The human body is SURETY for the debt in violation of U.C.C. Article 3-402 (b) (1): “If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of the represented person who is identified in the instrument, the representative is not liable on the instrument.”  The “represented person”- Person being the key word for the artificial “person” corporation insurance franchise.

Attorneys also go after people for “Unlicensed Practice of Copyrighted LEGAL CODE [they call ‘LAW’]”.  After the Article here, there is an Analysis of the Legal definitions and CODES in Oregon that dives into what makes using the word “engineer” illegal in Oregon.

Illegal Math? Oregon State Board criminalizing speech about traffic lights and unlicensed “practice of engineering”

Running red lights can get you a ticket. But in Oregon, you can be fined just for talking about it.

Mats Järlström learned this first-hand last year when the state of Oregon fined him $500 for publicly suggesting that yellow lights should last for slightly longer to accommodate cars making right turns.

Mats is a tinkerer. In the great tradition of American inventors and scientists who got their start working in their garage or basement, Mats saw a problem and set out to fix it—that is, until the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (EDITORS NOTE: we encourage you to call them on 503-362-2666) brought everything to a screeching halt.

It all started when Mats’s wife received a red-light camera ticket, which sparked Mats’s interest in how exactly yellow lights are timed.

He did a little Googling and found the formula used to set traffic-light times. The length of time a traffic light stays yellow is based on a relatively straightforward mathematical formula, originally drafted in 1959. Mats realized that the formula is incomplete, because it fails to capture the behavior of drivers making right turns. After developing a modified formula and even corresponding with one of the formula’s original creators, Mats started to reach out to others in the scientific community, government officials, and the media.

Mats’s work was generally met with interest and praise, but when Mats e-mailed the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, things took an abrupt illegal U-turn. The Board told Mats they had no interest in hearing about his ideas. Fair enough. But the Board didn’t stop there. They launched a full-blown investigation, alleging that he’d engaged in the unlicensed “practice of engineering.”

After a two-year-long investigation, the Board fined him $500. According to the Board, “critiquing” the length of yellow lights and talking about his ideas with “members of the public” made Mats a lawbreaker because he’s not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer.

The Board also told Mats that he couldn’t refer to himself using the word “engineer” either. Most people would probably agree that “engineer” is a sensible way to describe Mats, given his education, experience, and skills. (He has a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden, and he’s worked in a range of technical fields for decades).  But in Oregon, none of that matters; the word “engineer” is off-limits to everyone who is not a state-licensed professional engineer.

But now, Mats is fighting back. No matter how technical the topic, the government cannot give state-licensed experts a monopoly on exchanging ideas. Mats isn’t claiming the right to single-handedly change traffic lights himself; he just wants to talk about them.

The government has also stopped people like Mats from truthfully calling themselves “engineers.” Just as the State of Oregon has no monopoly on engineering concepts, it has no monopoly on words (EDITORS NOTE: IN SOME SENSE IT DOES! B.A.R. ATTORNEYS WORLD-WIDE HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES PERMISSION TO MONOPOLIZE WORDS WITH ALL UPPER CASE DOG LATIN-The Justinian Deception and semantic deception/word magic of “LEGAL DICTIONARIES”; WHICH IS USED IN ALL COURT CASE DEBT “MATTERS” across nearly the whole planet -within the corporations pretending to be “governments”- and relates to using UPPER CASE ARTIFICIAL PERSON CORPORATION “NAMES”, particularly on TOMB STONES GRAVE SITESas death is merely a legal fiction!). That is why Mats has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to ask the federal courts to protect the First Amendment rights of all Oregonians to speak freely about whatever they want. It’s time for Oregon to give free speech the green light.


STATE OF OREGON – OREGON REVISED STATUTES – GSCW Analysis

In the Oregon Legislature – glossary of LEGAL TERMS,

“Chief engineer” or “engineer” means the person designated by the director under ORS 184.628 (Chief engineer).

Person

First, click the link on person.  There is no definition related to human being ANYWHERE in the glossary definition for “PERSON”.  The closest thing there could be is an “INDIVIDUAL”; which is another name for TAXPAYER and thus Artificial person -by code definition in this link-.  When

The closest definition for INDIVIDUAL in Oregon Revised Statutes related to human being  is as a NATURAL PERSON, but this then relies on the recursive definition of PERSON…  which is a logical fallacy.  A term cannot define itself; even externalized one and/or more layers through COMPOUND DEFINITIONS -another semantic deception of the legal system-.

  1. “Individual” means a natural person. “Individual” includes the estate of an incompetent individual or a deceased individual.”

3. “Individual” means a natural person and includes the guardian of an incompetent individual.
Oregon Legislature 3
See also board, person, uncompensated officer

“INCLUDES” means — A term of limitation! — Ex parte Martinez.

“It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain.”
Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum. – Maxim of law

This means that: In referring to an “INDIVIDUAL” as a NATURAL PERSON, what they mean is the GUARDIAN of an Incompetent Individual (the legal presence artificial person, that one has not yet become executor of); who is also an incompetent “individual.”

By referring to human beings as “INDIVIDUALS” -by semantic deception-, Oregon is making “citizens” legally of unsound mind and incompetent!

 Furthermore, the DEFINITION of INDIVIDUAL references that they are an UNCOMPENSATED OFFICER.  Thus supporting the fact that just simply HAVING a Driver’s License (which the human is the CEO-President-Officer-Authorized Representative (falsely assumed surety) OF the DRIVER’s LICENSE ARTIFICIAL PERSON) REQUIRES Universal Basic Income via Minimum Wage!  Humans have been the UNCOMPENSATED OFFICERs of the ARTIFICIAL PERSON -by criminal fraudulent deceptive assumption- since 1938.  We have every right and responsibility to demand back pay.  The Debt to pay for all this DOES exist…  in the BIRTH CERTIFICATE BANK NOTE INSURANCE FRANCHISE ARTIFICIAL PERSON ACCOUNT.
These unclaimed ARTIFICIAL PERSON BANK ACCOUNTS -worth many millions of dollars if not billions- end up in these 1000 peoples’ hands upon LEGAL FICTIONAL death.  The account numbers are staggering2.588 septendecillion Federal Reserve Notes per last public tally.  This is 2.588 million trillion trillion trillion trillion (which is four trillions stacked in a row).

DIRECTOR

From the OREGON Glossary Term “DIRECTOR”

2015 ORS 184.628¹

Chief engineer

(1) The Director of Transportation, with the approval of the Oregon Transportation Commission, shall appoint a chief engineer. The chief engineer shall be a registered civil engineer and shall be qualified by technical training as well as by practical experience.

(2)The chief engineer may designate persons within the Department of Transportation who have full authority to perform any duty required or permitted by law to be performed by the engineer.

(3)The director may authorize the employment by the chief engineer of such staff engineers, engineering and technical assistants and such other help that in the chief engineer’s judgment may be necessary. Compensation, travel allowance and other expenses shall be fixed by the chief engineer with the approval of the director.

Only the Director of Transportation is allowed to APPOINT registered artificial persons as “chief engineers.”   Then only the “chief engineer” may “designate” “engineer” artificial persons.  The “engineer” entity then only has “registered” debt-insurance to commit “fraudulent and deceptive commerce.”  The “engineers” are authorized, meaning they can issued JUDGEMENT ORDERS to CREATE DEBT FROM NOTHING on behalf of the “chief engineer.”

The CHIEF ENGINEER is allowed to FIX THE BOOKS.  That is to say: FIX is another word for MANIPULATE, RIG, CONSPIRACY.

A JUDGEMENT ORDER is a very specific type of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT DEBT that allows them to just simply CREATE it from nothing and count it as REVENUE!  They even refer to creating judgements and orders by authorization right there in the Oregon Revised Statutes.

Conclusion

This appears to be extortion by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying.  They have no right nor claim -even as the code is written- to usurp the word “engineer” in such ways.  Feel free to contact and/or call them on 503-362-2666 and give them a piece of our mind.  If you record the conversation, please say so in the beginning, and send me the audio.  My contact info is in the About Page.

This is an offense to all engineers planet wide, particularly those in Oregon who now cannot use the term on their resumés until the legal system changes.

These underlings in the Governmental Corporation likely do not know what their ATTORNEYS are doing with their corporation and codes.

One of the most amazing aspects here is that criminalizing basic human “words”, “actions”, and rights is/was done in many other codes and states/statutes as well, such as “Midwifes”, “massage”, “driving”, “dentist”, “doctor”, “teacher”, “sheriff”, “attorney”, etc.  It is almost shocking that the STATE OF OREGON doesn’t start suing/issuing judgement citations to people for using the word “DIRECTOR”!!!!   ROFL!  The Word “Director” is just as “monopolized” as the word “engineer” here.

So why is/was Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying issuing warrants against the OREGON TREASURY for the word “engineer” rather than word “director”?  It seems that the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying is trying to PUNISH people who do their jobs better than them!  ROFL!  #sad-and-true.

Attorneys try to say that “unlicensed practice of legal statutes is illegal” which may be true because only attorneys have access to the COPYRIGHTED STATUTES and their “execution”, however it is NOT UNLAWFUL.   ATTORNEYS -in FACT- do not have any legislative standing in courts.  ATTORNEYS ARE PRACTICING CRIMINAL ACTS and allowed to get away with it by having FRAUDULENT DEBT INSURANCE.

I have attempted to gain remedy through these DEBT INSURANCE instruments and even with legitimate claims and PROVEN EVIDENCE, all claims are denied…

Insurance is merely an act to rationalize The State’s criminal behavior.

This -AGAIN- goes to show that the criminal UNITED STATES, INC needs to be treated as the FORECLOSED BANKRUPT TERMINATED corporation that they no longer can fraudulently present themselves as.  The APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE is totally done.  the UNITED STATES, INC is not about justice, it is about DEBT and not being liable for their own crimes.

Lastly, Oregon and the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying is foreclose by U.C.C. File Documents #2012127810, 2012127854, 2012127907 and 2012127914, unrebutted.  They do not have any copyright on the terms “chief engineer” nor “engineer” any more.  Such is the nature of foreclosure.


Besides making our voices heard, what else can be done about the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying?  Rather than sue the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying GENERAL COUNSEL BAR ATTORNEYS -whom are LITERALLY in cahoots with the BAR ATTORNEY JUDGES and DEFENSE ATTORNEYS (as all BAR ATTORNEYS WORK FOR THE COURT FIRST AND FOREMOST; before the client)-…

How about this as a solution to the clear and obvious corporate criminal behavior by public officials in the UNITED STATES, INC?

NYTimes: People Are Seeing U.F.O.s Everywhere, and This Book Proves It

This GSC blog writer has seen several ET crafts.  One was a group of 6 lights that move across the sky, then formed a triangle.  The triangle rotated in 3D, then the crafts literally fizzled away into the darkness as they were performing 3d Triangle acrobatics.  There were no red/white “blinking” lights.  The colors were magnificently rainbow multicolor.  Words cannot describe the color patternings.

That is just one of several experiences.  It is happening.  Just look up into the sky.  They are out space brothers and sisters.

People Are Seeing U.F.O.s Everywhere, and This Book Proves It

A protest in Washington, D.C., in 1995 outside the offices of the General Accounting Office. Joshua Roberts/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

SYRACUSE — Why have sightings of unidentified flying objects around the nation more than tripled since 2001? Why is July the busiest month for U.F.O. sightings? Why did they spike in Texas in 2008, or in New Mexico in September 2015?

And how in the world, or out of it, has Manhattan racked up New York State’s second-highest tally of U.F.O. sightings in this century?

These questions and many others emerge from the first comprehensive statistical summary of so-called close encounters: 121,036 eyewitness accounts, organized county by county in each state and the District of Columbia, from 2001 to 2015.

The unlikely compendium, “U.F.O. Sightings Desk Reference,” is the work of a couple in Syracuse, who crunched unruly data on U.F.O. reports collected by two volunteer organizations: the Mutual U.F.O. Network, or Mufon, and the National U.F.O. Reporting Center, or Nuforc.

It is the reference “U.F.O. researchers dreamed of having,” Gordon G. Spear, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at Sonoma State University in California, writes in the foreword.

The book contains no narrative or anecdotal accounts, just 371 pages of charts and graphs that slice and dice the geography and timing of the incidents and the various shapes that witnesses reported: flying circles, spheres, triangles, discs, ovals, cigars.

Many of the sightings turn out to be explainable, the authors say, but a small percentage defy resolution.

The authors are Cheryl Costa, 65, a former military technician and aerospace analyst, and her wife, Linda Miller Costa, 62, a librarian at Le Moyne College and a former librarian at the National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Working on PCs amid sewing tables in the upstairs parlor — the warmest room in their hundred-year-old house — the two spent weekends for the last 16 months extrapolating figures from sightings reports and laying out the graphics.

Cheryl Costa was writing New York Skies, a U.F.O. blog for The Syracuse New Times, when the Costas decided to expand their tallies of U.F.O. sightings nationwide. “We wanted to do our bit for disclosure,” she said. “It’s something the government should have been doing.”

The Costas realize some might find this a strange way to spend weekends. But both say they have spotted U.F.O.s themselves and want to detoxify the subject.

“We’re doing scientific research,” Cheryl Costa said. “What’s crazy is not being willing to look at research.”

She came to the collaboration roundabout, having served as a cable lineman in the Air Force in Vietnam, and afterward in the Navy’s submarine service, as a man before undergoing gender-reassignment surgery in the 1980s. Ordained as a Buddhist nun, she was running a theater group in Maryland when she met Linda. They wed in 2011.

U.F.O. trackers welcomed their publication.

“With this compendium, Cheryl and Linda Costa have reminded the public and the media the extraterrestrial phenomenon continues unabated,” said Stephen Bassett, founder and executive director of the Paradigm Research Group, which lobbies for disclosure of official U.F.O. records.

Cheryl Costa, left, and Linda Miller Costa, the authors of “U.F.O. Sightings Desk Reference.” Heather Ainsworth for The New York Times

Rebutting a common perception that U.F.O. sightings are on the wane, the Costas’ book shows that sightings have risen in waves, to 11,868 nationwide in 2015 from 3,479 in 2001. Only a small fraction of sightings are actually reported to Mufon or Nuforc.

Their labor of love is about the numbers, just the numbers, and the Costas refrain from speculating on what exactly is happening. “We really don’t know,” Linda Costa said. “But all these people are seeing these things.”

The government officially quit the U.F.O. business in 1968, with the finding in the Condon report from the University of Colorado that there was nothing significant to investigate, although some 30 percent of the incidents were unexplained.

Mufon’s 500 volunteer investigators, however, continue to check out many of the sightings reported to the group. Roger Marsh, a Mufon spokesman, said that of the 270 cases his group investigated in Manhattan from 2002 through 2016, 44 eluded explanation and remained “unknown.”

One of the most intriguing occurred on the afternoon of Sept. 17, 2011, when a man on the roof terrace of the New Museum on the Bowery photographed a fast-moving diamond-shaped object with windows and flashing blue and red lights against the TriBeCa skyline.

According to Mufon, it resembled an unknown flying object photographed in Round Rock, Tex., two weeks earlier.

The Costas listed 426 sightings in New York County from 2001 to 2015, second in the state’s tallies only to Suffolk County, on the tip of Long Island, with 554. How so many sightings in the nation’s densest core and around its toniest beach resorts have escaped wider notoriety is just part of the mystery.

For the U.F.O. enthusiast, the pages of graphs and charts are a treasure trove of hard-to-find detail.

The District of Columbia, with 9,856 people per square mile, had the fewest sightings: 154. (A political snub from deep space?) Wyoming, with 5.8 people per square mile, had more than twice as many: 337.

Fireballs made up nearly 8 percent of the sightings in Indiana (230) and fewer than 5 percent in Colorado (157).

California, the most populous state, led the nation in U.F.O. reports (15,836, more than the next two states, Florida and Texas, combined). Los Angeles County alone had more sightings than 40 states, followed by Maricopa County, Ariz., which includes Phoenix.

Population fails to explain the figures conclusively, the Costas said. Washington State, with 6.7 million people according to the 2010 census, ranks No. 4 in sightings, ahead of Pennsylvania, with 12.7 million people, and New York State, with 19 million.

Rather, the Costas theorize, the figures may reflect good West Coast weather, which draws more people outside where they may spot U.F.O.s. Nationwide sightings peak in July, they found, and drop off between December and February.

Still, in Mississippi, U.F.O. reports spike in January and November; in New Mexico, in September.

The arduous breakdown by the nation’s more than 3,000 counties was notable for revealing clusters of sightings in remote regions, places where U.F.O.s are almost never mentioned. But every county in the United States appears to have seen at least one U.F.O.

In the end, the Costas noted, the spikes may have a lot to do with media coverage.

U.S. Public Servant Questionnaire: First Line of Defense against unlawful Police

Every time a Police Officer talks, they are speaking through their LEGAL [fictional] ARTIFICIAL PERSON CORPORATION ENTITY construct.

When they ask for a name, that name is AUTOMATICALLY legalized into its UPPER CASE representation.

Police do NOT tell us that every time they talk to anyone, the “person” they talk to is already under suspicion BY LAW.  Such full terms and conditions are required to be disclosed by the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT -where the insurance franchise they are assuming exists is debt loaned into existence from nothing and thus covered by the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT-.

By Law, every time a Corporate AGENT/OFFICER speaks, they are to treat the human being as if they are GUILTY until PROVEN INNOCENT, by way of the still enforced LIEBER CODE, along with the TRADING IN THE ENEMY ACT, makes all human beings enemies of the Corporate “State“!

With this in mind, every time a Corporate POLICY ENFORCER opens their mouth, they are to automatically treat the human as a legal fictional criminal.  Indeed, just stopping someone in their policy enforcement car automatically puts the “driver” under administrative arrest.  They are required to say the Miranda Warning first thing when talking to a “driver,” yet most policy enforcers break these codes EVERY TIME.

In the STATE OF MICHIGAN, their APPLICATION FOR DRIVER’S LICENSE claim as legal language above the signature, “I certify under the penalty for perjury that I am a legal Michigan resident, the statements made on this application are true, and that a court is not holding my license.”  the first two “I”s refer to the human being, then the human is “fit” into a “legal Michigan resident” which is the “legal presence artificial ‘person’ corporation trust trade-name insurance franchise” that is corporate property owned by the STATE.

This legal language makes claiming to be a human over a “corporation” a felony crime..  just for having a Driver’s License.  This is what clergy would call “Original Sin.”  It is the first commission of a crime by temptation and suggestion.  The simple idea that a human being “needs” a Driver’s License to “Drive” is Neuro-Linguistic Programming, start to finish, birth to death within the LEGAL SOCIETY of ARTIFICIAL PERSONS.  The Right to Travel is independent, immutable, inviolatable, and may be used with IMPUNITY (total disregard for the violence that criminal mistrained corporate policy enforcers, as it is the violence that is the crime).

Policy Enforcement AGENTS depend upon this original commission of claiming to be NON-HUMAN to treat us as just that.

By way of WITH PREJUDICE, every officer may simply ASSUME (especially by POWER OF ASSUMPTION!!!) that these unlawful adhesion contracts exist and may be acted upon even if it is NOT true!

With that, the first line of defense is to have the PUBLIC SERVANT fill out the following questionnaire before they even open their mouth (but after they have placed your artificial person under administrative arrest by talking to “it”).

This form presents the PUBLIC SERVANT with the knowledge that the “person” they are talking to is the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, and not the ARTIFICIAL PERSON representing the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

This form was originally given to me and then edited for AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE information; as that is one of the most authoritative positions to be in according to statutory code.  U.C.C. Article 3 §3-402 (b) (1) clearly indicates that the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE cannot be held accountable for the debts of the ARTIFICIAL PERSON!

Print this form out and use it any time a POLICY ENFORCER attempts to engage with you as an ARTIFICIAL PERSON.

Public Servant Questionnaire PDF

Instructions for Use

Print this form out and Carry this with you at all times.  Present it to any PUBLIC SERVANT who decides to get cheeky with their job and fictional “authority.”

Have this ready whenever they talk to you.  When they approach, give the form to them and say, “YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED.”

Refuse to answer any questions until it is filled out.  just say and repeat: “I don’t answer any questions.  Please fill the form out.”

DO NOT FOLLOW ANY ORDERS, as the orders do not have any authority nor standing until such authority/standing is PROVEN by a completed questionnaire.  It is recommended that we force policy enforcers to act in violent, combative, and belligerent ways rather than just comply with their unlawful orders.  (all orders by policy enforcers are unlawful, especially in light of the WRIT MANDAMUS issued at the COMMON LAW preventing all COLOR OF LAW actions.)

This is just one of many real-time solutions for dealing with unlawful POLICY ENFORCERS…  which is all of them.

This form works for non-legal human beings, assumed artificial persons (which is the primary job of policy enforcers), and World Citizens.

US regressing into a developing nation for most people, MIT professor warns

US regressing into a developing nation for most people, MIT professor warns

US regressing into a developing nation for most people, MIT professor warns
Growing income inequality is turning the US into a dual economy, with one economy for the rich and another for the poor, according to an MIT professor, who warns that the middle class is vanishing.

In his new book, “The Vanishing Middle Class,” Peter Temin, professor emeritus of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, warns that the US is moving backward and becoming more like a developing nation, as the “the vanishing middle class has left behind a dual economy.

We are still one country, but the stretch of incomes is fraying the unity of the nation,” Temin wrote in the introduction of his book, according to a copy obtained by Barnard College.

The economist describes a dual economy, where the gap between the rich and the poor has grown wider.

Temin points to a study from the Pew Research Center, which, he said, “shows that the income share lost by the middle class has gone to people earning more than double the median income.

“In short, the rich got richer. The poor did not disappear, and the middle class shrank sharply,” Temin wrote. “We are on our way to become a nation of the rich and the poor with only a few people in the middle.”

Temin argues that American history and politics had a lot to do with the increasing wealth inequality.

Over a period of 40 years, from World War II to the 1970s, Temin said that wages grew with the rest of the economy. Then, starting in the 1970s, national production continued to grow, but wages did not.

“The middle class’s share of total income fell 30 percent in 44 years,” Temin wrote.

The wealthiest 20 percent of the population had access to education, good jobs and social networks, while the other 80 percent was increasingly burdened with debts, low-wage jobs, and health problems. Now, Temin said the conditions where many poorer Americans live in resemble developing countries, with dilapidated housing, crumbling public transportation, and roads and neglected social structures.

Temin splits the economy into the “FTE sector” (finance, technology, and electronics) and low-skill work. The economic gap between rich and poor began with the war on drugs, he said.

“The low-wage sector—like the FTE sector—was born in 1971 as President [Richard] Nixon replaced [President Lyndon B.] Johnson’s War on Poverty with a new War on Drugs and appointed Lewis Powell to the Supreme Court,” Temin wrote. “As the War on Drugs expanded in subsequent decades, it was enforced far more strongly for African Americans than for whites, becoming… the ‘New Jim Crow,’ revamping and renewing the racist intent of the repressive old anti-black Jim Crow laws that followed Reconstruction in the South.”

After that, Temin said, the FTE sector became driven by money and free-market individualism. They began to ignore the needs of the low-wage sector, turned away from public-spirited universalism to free-market individualism and even began to work against the low-wage sector.

The FTE sector was able to stay in power, Temin said, because of Investment Theory of Politics, which he describes as “the connection between the income distribution in the United States and political decisions.

Investment Theory of Politics was developed by political scientist Thomas Ferguson, director of research at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), who said that there is a direct correlation between the money major political parties spend and the votes they win.

The evidence can be seen in a simple graph from a study conducted by the Roosevelt Institute on the influence money had on the 2012 presidential election.

Temin used a model created by Nobel Prize winner Arthur Lewis, which was designed to describe how far inequalities have progressed in developing nations. When Temin used the applied the model to the US, he said: “The Lewis Model actually works.

“We have a structure that predetermines winners and losers. We are not getting the benefits of all the people who could contribute to the growth of the economy, to advances in medicine or science which could improve the quality of life for everyone — including some of the rich people,” Temin wrote, according to the Independent

To break the cycle, Temin provides some recommendations, including reducing mass imprisonment, which costs around $1 trillion a year, or 6 percent of the total US gross domestic product, according to a 2016 study from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

He recommends using the money to increasing funds for public education, so families can escape the low-skill trap and integrate into the broader economy.

Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud

ATTENTION: To get the PDF files of the court case in this article, click on this link and then click on the appropriate links to view or download them. Please do not ask me personal questions about this court case, because I am not a part of it. The content about this court case was originally published on SupremeCourtCase.WordPress.com. I recommend reading the content in the comment section at the end of this article, because it has some interesting information on the legal system.

If you have been reading my articles about the legal system, you should know that this system is a big fat FRAUD and is run by a bunch of TRAITORS to humanity! The content below will show you more evidence of this fraud against humanity. For some reason, I could not find the court case No. 4:14-CV-0027 on txcourts.gov.

As always, use your intuition to help you discern the information and do your own research to verify the information below. Thanks to Steve for sending me the link to this article. ~ PL Chang

Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court’s constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45

(SupremeCourtCase.wordpress.com) The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is Southern District of Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.

There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the “Lufkin Case”).

Petitioner’s filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges and magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has made no progress in 14 months.

When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case—Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Ron Clark—to recuse (self-disqualify) himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law (and provided evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and remained so. Six weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler Division) under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin Division; Judge Clark is not involved.

For any court to exercise jurisdiction in a particular geographic area, there is a requirement that the Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it; to wit:

“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal [United States Supreme Court], two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . .” [Emphasis in original.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).

That a lawsuit is authorized by the statutes of Congress, however, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest jurisdiction in any Federal court; to wit:

“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).

Article III of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to ordain and establish inferior trial courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction—with no authority to exercise general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject matter) anywhere in the Union.

Courtesy of Congress, however (since no later than June 25, 1948), every United States District Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears and decides both civil and criminal cases, an implied power granted only in the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2), and only in Federal territory, such as the District of Columbia and the territories; to wit, in pertinent part:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . .”

All Federal civil and criminal proceedings fall under Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure.

Congress define “judgment” in Title 28 U.S.C., Chapter 176, Section 3002(8) as follows:

“‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.”

(EDITORS NOTE: An ORDER is a Negotiable Instrument term for a promise to pay, regarding a debt!)

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner files in the Lufkin Case, “Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas” (the “Objection and Demand”) (hyperlinked below).

The statutory period for plaintiff United States to respond to the Objection and Demand is 14 days.

On September 29, 2015, 15 days after the filing of the Objection and Demand, the record in the Lufkin Case is devoid of response from either plaintiff or the Court—and Petitioner transmits to the clerk on that date, for filing September 30, 2015, “Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas” (the “Demand for Dismissal”) (hyperlinked below).

The reason neither plaintiff nor the Lufkin Court could produce the constitutional authority that allows the Court to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas, is because there is no such constitutional authority.

For the Lufkin Court to reveal that it is using Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and extend its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdictioninto geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction, would be to confess to usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction and treason to the Constitution.

“How can this be?” or “How can they get away with this?” you may ask.

The answer is simple.

When Congress define a word or expression by legislative act, the ordinary and popular meaning (as found in the dictionary or encyclopedia) is stripped away and the new term means only what Congress define it to mean—and there is no discretion for anyone to take such term in any other way than provided in the statute.

In all civil and criminal proceedings in United States District Courts, “United States” is a term with a special definition and meaning.

In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,” “debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).

In the United States District Court conducting the Lufkin Case, “United States” means a Federal corporation—and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over all other Federal entities of any kind—is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[1]

Every appearance of “United States” in anything and everything relating to Federal district courts means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:

  • “Congress of the United States” means, literally, Congress of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.
  • “Title 28 United States Code” means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Code.
  • “United States District Court” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court.
  • “United States District Judge” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Judge.
  • “United States Attorney” means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Attorney.

In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there is no discretion for anyone to take “United States” any other way.

Actors in government rely on cognitive dissonance[2] on the part of victims of the Federal word game to perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and subject the American People to District of Columbia municipal law.

The hoax is protected by a culture of silence among all initiates in the Federal judiciary, Department of Justice, and other key positions in government.

And that is how they get away with it.

In summation: United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2) District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction (District of Columbia and the territories only), into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).

There is no constitutional authority that gives any contemporary United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county in America—and no one can produce such authority.

Objection and Demand, September 14, 2015

Demand for Dismissal, September 30, 2015

[1] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

[2] In general, people cannot reconcile the 75 absurd, convoluted definitions of “United States” scattered throughout the United States Code with what they believe is the United States. For those few souls who manage to figure it out and speak up about it, actors in government follow a culture-of-silence policy of “Never respond, confirm, or deny.” Examples of this are (1) Chief Judge Ron Clark’s six weeks of silence following Petitioner’s motion for him to recuse himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law, and (2) ZERO government progress in the Lufkin Case in more than 14 months.

If a particular intended victim persists, government actors may mock / ridicule him by implication by quoting him, as if to say, “Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He thinks the United States is a Federal corporation!” (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society as to the truth of the matter.

Petitioner obviates the cognitive-dissonance factor in the Lufkin Case by going straight to the supreme determinant, upon which the Lufkin Court’s very existence depends: the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas. There is no such constitutional authority—and the Lufkin Court and every other United States District Court located throughout the Union is a kangaroo court with no lawful authority to do business in any county, borough, or parish in America.

Sister Federal tax case: Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any further

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant’s Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Objection and Demand”).

Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).

As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).

The Court, however, stood mute.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner’s Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the “Demand for Dismissal”).

Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.

As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner’s demands.

The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner’s filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.

Notwithstanding that the penalty for treason to the Constitution is death, the Federal judge and DOJ attorneys in this case have a more pressing situation on their hands:

The entire fraudulent Federal judicial apparatus is at stake because no contemporary Federal court has the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county, parish, or borough in America—and there is no reason why the above filings from this case will not produce the same results in any other Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.

If the Department of Justice cannot win a case anywhere in America, the days of the hoax of Federal jurisdiction over the American People are numbered.

The sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division was an attempt to foreclose on Federal tax liens filed against Petitioner’s ranch. Judge and plaintiff having departed the field of battle, said case is over in substance—Petitioner prevailing.

Regarding the original Federal tax case, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil No. 4:14-cv-0027 (which the Supreme Court declined to review): There are other remedies available to Petitioner and Petitioner is pursuing them. Developments will be posted on this website as they occur.

* * * *

Note: If a sufficient number of requests are received (under “Leave a comment” in the left-hand margin above), Petitioner will make available in PDF format on this website the docket and full contents of the record of both the original Houston Division case and the sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division. The record of these two cases chronicles and documents certain seminal congressional acts that are not taught in any school but have been used to deceive and deprive the American People of the unalienable and constitutional Right of Liberty and foist upon them (1) so-called civil (municipal) rights, (2) rules and regulations (statutes), and (3) municipal (Roman civil) law—a state of affairs abhorrent to the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution for which they all risked their life to escape. The Lufkin Division case is the first time in American history that a defendant overcame and nullified the hoax of Federal jurisdiction and caused the United States District Judge, United States Attorney, and Assistant United States Attorney to flee.

Source:

To learn more about the court cases in this article, visit SupremeCourtCase.WordPress.com.