FOREIGN origin



[pic]

“Old Glory”

[4 USC sec. 1-4]

TESTIMONY in the form of AFFIDAVIT

State )

) Subscribed, Affirmed, Sealed

________ County )

i, me, my, or myself, also known as john-henry: house of doe, hereinafter “affiant”, having been duly put under oath, i do affirm, depose, say, and declare:

One. Affiant is of the age of majority and competent to state the matters set forth herein, and further;

Two. Affiant’s “status” in relation to the Supreme Law of the Land is most accurately described as Sovereign In Capita Sui Juris, pretended claims to the contrary notwithstanding, and further;

Three. Affiant has standing capacity to act as to the lawful matters herein, and further;

Four. Affiant has personal, executive, and documented knowledge of the facts and evidence contained herein and if called upon to testify, affiant will testify to their veracity, and further;

Five. In absence of evidence to the contrary, affiant is a free man on the soil of Arizona and devoid of any knowledge of surrendering himself to the District of Columbia and their US citizen scam, or their government employee scam, or their Roman Cult cestui que trust scam, as evidenced by the AFFIDAVIT OF CORPORATE DENIAL, recorded with the ___________ County Recorder at FEE NUMBER 0000-0000000, and hold any respondents to the strictest proof to the contrary, and further;

Six. In the absence of contrary evidence, i am a free man on the soil of ______________(state name) and other American states from time to time, and devoid of any knowledge of surrendering or volunteering myself to the armed forces of any country and hold any respondents to the strictest proof to the contrary, and further;

Seven. In the absence of contrary evidence, i am a free man on the soil of Arizona and devoid of any knowledge of surrendering or volunteering myself to the District of Columbia and their Social Security scam, and hold any respondents to the strictest proof to the contrary, and further;

Eight. “Indeed, ‘no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case.’” (United States v. Kis, 658 F. 2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169 (S. Ct. 3/22/82)), and further;

Nine. Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit [See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matthew 5:33; James 5:12], and further;

Ten. “Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” – Article IV, Section 1, united States’ Constitution (AD 1791), and further;

Eleven. Any listing(s) of case sites, federal or state statutes and codes, or executive orders, are for clarification and reference only and shall not be construed as submission by the affiant to any jurisdiction other than that of the Divine Creator, and further;

Twelve. Affiant has no documents, records or knowledge of any evidence that he has any contractual agreement and/or consideration from the UNITED STATES Corporation, which is a requirement for any contract to be valid, and affiant believes no such evidence exists, nor could it exist, and further;

Thirteen. Affiant does not recognize any government or other artificial entity with jurisdiction or a prior claim to that of the Divine Creator regarding Affiant according to I Corinthians 7:22, and 23 (KJV of Bible), and further;

Fourteen. Formulated by treaty, the UPU (Universal Postal Union) in Berne, Switzerland, operates under the authority of treaties with every country in the world. No nation can be recognized as a nation without being in international admiralty in order for them to have a forum common to all nations for engaging in

commerce and resolving disputes. That is why the U.S.A. under the Articles of Confederation could not be recognized as a country. Every state (former colony) was sovereign, with its own common law, which foreclosed other countries from interacting with the U.S.A. as a nation in international commerce, and further;

Fifteen. Today, international admiralty is the private jurisdiction of the IMF, et al., the creditor in the bankruptcy of essentially every government on Earth. Every nation’s postal system has a reciprocal banking and commercial relationship with one another – whereby all are within and under the UPU. The UPU is the number one military (international admiralty is also military) contract mover on the planet. This is the reason one should send all important legal and commercial documents through the post office rather than private carriers, and further;

Sixteen. The use of the UPU give one direct access to the authority of the UPU—and therefore, the corresponding availability of remedy and recourse via the UPU. For instance, if one does his post through the US Post Office (as opposed to the USPS) and the US Postmaster does not provide one with the remedy that one requested within twenty-one (21) days, that one can take the matter to the UPU. Involving the authority of the UPU is automatically invoked by the use of postage stamps. Using a postage stamp and autograph on it makes one the postmaster for that Contract—whenever one puts a stamp on a document, and inscribe one’s full name over the stamp at an angle. Ideal colors for doing this are purple (royalty), blue (origin of the bond), and gold (king’s edict). Autographing a stamp not only establishes one as the postmaster of the contract but constitutes a cross-claim, and further;

Seventeen. Canceling a stamp both registers the matter and forms a contract between the party that cancels the stamp and the UPU. Using a stamp for postage without canceling it is prima facie evidence that the postmaster of the local Post Office is committing mail fraud by taking a customer’s money and not providing the paid-for service and providing you with the power of a cancelled stamp, as required under the provisions of the UPU, and further;

Eighteen. When one places an autographed stamp on a document it will invoke that document and the contract underlying it under international law and treaty, with which the courts have no jurisdiction to deal. In addition, no authority/jurisdiction can impair a contract between one (as the living principal) and the UPU (overseer of all world commerce), and further;

Nineteen. If a carrier is found wanting in due diligence concerning the delivery of the cargo, the liability attaches at the time of the diversion of the documents, and further;

Twenty. The Admiralty Extension Act extends the admiralty jurisdiction inland. All states by law have access to the sea. Therefore any land locked country has an easement, so to speak, across other countries in order to get to the sea. All states have an admiralty jurisdiction in all of their courts, and further;

Twenty-one. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. – Any foreign sovereigns are liable for damages while doing business in the United States. This provision has application since the foreign sovereign — the judges, clerks, etc. — operate on the behalf of a de facto foreign fiction government. Officials are liable for the damages that they commit while doing business in the country, and further;

Twenty-two. The Public Vessels Act – is an admiralty provision that a libellant can use for remedy. Example, if the libellant has been damaged by a judge, police officer, prosecutor, court clerk, or other public vessel, the libellant is authorized to sue for the damages in the venue of the admiralty jurisdiction. Again, the Public Vessels Act is a law that specifically waives any immunity of the government, and further;

Twenty-three. The Post Office and Judicial Courts were established before the seat of the Government, and further;

Twenty-four. Gold is the acceptable form of money in international jurisdictions, or paper backed by gold. When one purchases a postal money order, the money order is backed by gold, not the fiat “money” called Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). The FRNs are based instead on a promise to pay a debt. The debt is based only upon the “full faith and credit of the United States,” and lacks any intrinsic value, and further;

Twenty-five. The Universal Postal Union (UPU, French: Union postale universelle) is an international organization that coordinates postal policies among member nations, in addition to the worldwide postal system.

Twenty-six. Declarative Theory . . .

The “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria:

1) a defined territory (affiant’s body is a vessel, a territory and that UCC-1 is affiant’s defined territory), AND FURTHER;

2) a permanent population, (affiant has a population of ONE, I AM the ONE), AND FURTHER;

3) a government, (the structure of principles and rules determining how a

state or organization is regulated [Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed.] affiant’s brain regulates and governs his state and wellbeing), AND FURTHER;

4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. (affiant has the Unlimited Right to contract.

See: United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. Additionally, Hale v. Henkel. 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906). The opinion of the court stated: “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.

His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.

He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."} Pet. C.C.R. 322. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. Sec. 1368 to 1891 Serg. Const. Law, 356; Rawle on the Const. h.t.; Dame’s Ab. Index, h.t.; 10 Am. Jur. 273-297, and further;

Twenty-seven. According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, and further;

Twenty-eight. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh International Conference of American States. The Convention codified the declarative theory of statehood as accepted as part of customary international law. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognized by other sovereign states, unrecognized states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. Each person in international law is a sovereign state body politic, and further;

Twenty-nine. U.S.C. Title 18 § 11. Foreign Government Defined.

The term “foreign government”, as used in this title except in sections 112, 878, 970, 1116, and 1201, includes any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by the United States, and further;

Thirty. Their are Two Postal Entities

1. The United States Post Office

● Established July 26, 1775

● Has never been bankrupt

● Established before the Articles of Confederation passed by Congress 1777,

ratified 1781,

● The Constitution was ratified in 1787.

● Handles the Post – Post, not the Mail. “Mail” is Martial Law terminology.

2. The UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS)

● Established on August 12, 1970.

● ZIP codes were started by Proclamation 3746, on September 20, 1966 by

then President, Lyndon B. Johnson.

● All USPS employees are classified as U.S. citizens.

● USPS deals in the District of Columbia and the territories ONLY, and

● Handles the Mail, not the Post, and further;

Thirty-one. “§ 201 United States Postal Service. There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the government of the United States, The United States Postal Service.” 84 Stat. 720

The purpose: to commercialize the postal services of the Post Office, and further;

Thirty-two. “It is a well established principle of law that all Federal regulation applies ONLY within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. . .” Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949), and further;

Thirty-three. “There is a cannon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears legislation is meant to apply only in the territory of the UNITED STATES (a.k.a. District of Columbia).” U.S. v. Spolar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222. —not to/for the private sovereign American national, and further;

Thirty-four. “In the case of public international law, the several States of the Union are neither foreign to each other, but such is not the case in the field of private international law.” Robinson v. Norato, 71 RI 256, 43 A2d 467, 162 ALR 362. [emphasis added] , and further;

Thirty-five. The service that is the United States Post Office was created for the people, and it is affiant’s to use PREPAID & UNOBSTRUCTED, and further;

Thirty-six. Postage – D.C. and Territories

“Section 22. And be it further enacted, that the rate of postage for all letters transmitted in the mails of the United States, and not exceeding one half ounce in weight, shall be uniform at three cents; and for each half ounce, or fraction thereof additional weight, there shall be charged an additional rate of three cents, to be in all cases prepaid by postage stamps plainly affixed to such letter.” Ch. 71, Sec. 22, 12 Stat. 705, Approved March 8, 1863. —this applies only to U.S. citizens (a.k.a., 14TH Amendment Federal State citizens) sending mail through the United States Post Office, not the USPS, and further;

Thirty-seven. “A ‘citizen of the United States’ is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT (Public Charitable Trust), the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc.” Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641 – 15646, and further;

Thirty-eight. “Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State.” Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905, and further;

Thirty-nine. “. . . it is evident that they [U.S. citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy. . .” People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870), and further;

Forty. Postage – Union States

“Section 23. And be it further enacted, that the rate of postage for all letters not transmitted in the mails of the United States, but delivered through the post office or its carriers, commonly described as local or drop letters, and not exceeding one half ounce in weight; shall be uniform at two cents, and for each half ounce, or fraction thereof additional weight, to be in all cases prepaid by postage stamps plainly affixed to such letter, but no extra postage or carrier’s fee shall hereafter be charged or collected upon letters delivered by carriers, nor upon letters collected by them for mailing or delivery.” —this applies to State Citizens sending their post through the United States Post Office, not USPS, and further;

Forty-one. General Post Office

“Section 2. And be it further enacted, that the Postmaster General, all postmasters, and special agents, and all persons employed in the General Post Office, or in the care, custody, or conveyance of the mail, hereafter appointed or employed, shall, previous to entering upon the duties assigned to them, or the execution of their trusts, and before they shall be entitled to receive any emoluments therefor, in addition to the oath of office prescribed by the act of July two, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, respectively take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation. . .” 12 Stat. 71, ch. 71, Sec. 2, Approved on March 8, 1963, and further;

Forty-two. “Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs the mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1701, and further;

Forty-three. – A Sovereign is not a person as far as a Statute is concerned.

Will v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) [emphasis added], and further;

Forty-four. The Founding Fathers of America defined an American Citizen as a “sovereign without subjects”. This definition (and designation) is found in no less than six (6) U.S. Supreme Court cases, i.e., Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 1791. Sovereignty up until then had been defined and understood to mean a position of rulership over other subjects. Our Founding Fathers re-defined it to mean the same power, but with a different application: instead of using one’s sovereignty to try to control others; one can use one’s sovereignty to simply live free and respect the freedom of others, and further;

Forty-five. “ ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign,[and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.’ Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 667, 61 L.Ed.2d 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275, 91 L.Ed. 884, 67 S.Ct. 677 (1947); Will v. Michigan State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 [emphasis added], and further;

Forty-six. “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” – In Re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 , and further;

Forty-seven. “The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, . . .” People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825) [emphasis added], and further;

Forty-eight. “The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047 [emphasis added], and further;

Forty-nine. “Let a State be considered as subordinate to the People: But let everything else be subordinate to the State.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 at 455, and further;

Fifty. “. . .it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. . . . .A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.” Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300, and further;

Fifty-one. “State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision.” Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97 (1908), and further;

Fifty-two. “State Citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the State has no power to divest or impair these rights.” Favot v. Kingsbury, 98 Cal. App. 284 (1929), 276 P. 1083, and further;

Fifty-three. “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California 110 U.S. 516, and further;

Fifty-four. “The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” U.S. v. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 [emphasis added] , and further;

Fifty-five. “Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and privilege limited by Congress.” Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6, pg 670 (1925) [emphasis added], and further;

Fifty-six. “If a Citizen acquires the same legal status (artificial character) as those protected by the [14th] Amendment (through the operation of some statutory law of Congress), then said Citizen may be brought within the venue of the Amendment as a statutory (juristic) person. By this means, Citizens birthrights become of no affect and their rights are reduce[d] to the inferior character of statutory Civil Rights (mere legislative privileges).” Dyett v. Turner 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 (1968) The Non-Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by Judge A. H. Ellett, Utah Supreme Court, and further;

Fifty-seven. “. . .a US citizen is NOT entitled to an Article 3 Court, but instead gets an Article 1 Court with a plenary (military dictatorship) jurisdiction and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 Constitution for the United States of America as defined and reinstated in National Mutual Insurance Company of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582, 93 L.Ed. 1556 (1948): which further states that citizens of the District of Columbia are not embraced by the judicial power under Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America, the same statement is held in Hepburn v. Dundas v. Elizey, 2 Cranch (U.S.) 445, 2 L.Ed. 332.; In 1804, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, held that a citizen of the District of Columbia was not a citizen of a state, and further;

Fifty-eight. “If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States Judicial District, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in The District of Columbia for purposes of any provisions of this Title to ‘(A) jurisdiction of courts, or (B) enforcement of summons.’” 26 USC § 7701(39); see also 26 USC § 7408(C) [emphasis added], and further;

Fifty-nine. “[T]he term ‘citizen,’ in the United States, is analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law.” State v. Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, pg. 430, and further;

Sixty. “Color of Law” means “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under ‘color of law.’” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C. Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188, and further;

Sixty-one. “It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442, and further;

Sixty-two. “State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision.” Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, 1908, and further;

Sixty-three. “State Citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the State has no power to divest or impair these rights.” Favot v. Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083, and further;

Sixty-four. “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, and further;

Sixty-five. “. . . at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country. . . the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471. [emphasis added], and further;

Sixty-six. “People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, 20 (NY), and further;

Sixty-seven. “The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract.” See, Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “. . . every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338, 2 S.E. 70. [emphasis added], and further;

Sixty-eight. “It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997. [emphasis added], and further;

Sixty-nine. “A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 527, 51 L.Ed. 834 (1907). [emphasis added], and further;

Seventy. “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, and further;

Seventy-one. “A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people.... A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special instances where the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself... p. 448 The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and may perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this – ‘do the people of the United States form a NATION?’ By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION.” [caps in the original] Chisholm. Ex’r v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794), and further;

Seventy-two. “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944. [emphasis added], and further;

Seventy-three. “(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity to takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.” Texas Penal Code Sec. 39.03 – Official Oppression, and further;

Seventy-four. “OATH. . . .All oaths must be lawful, allowed by the common law, or some statute; if they are administered by persons in a private capacity, or not

duly authorized, they are coram non judice, and void; and those administering them are guilty of a high contempt, for doing it without warrant of law, and punishable by fine and imprisonment. 3 Inst. 165; 4 Inst. 278; 2 Roll. Abr. 277.” Tomlin’s Law Dictionary, 1835 Edition, Volume 2 [emphasis added], and further;

Seventy-five. “COLOR OF OFFICE. A pretence of official right to do an act made by one who has no such right. 9 East 864. Such person must be at least a de facto officer; 28 Wend. 606. And act wrongfully done by an officer, under the pretended authority of his office, and grounded upon corruption, to which the office is a mere shadow of color. 41 N.Y. 464.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1897 Edition, Vol. 1, pg. 353, [emphasis added], and further;

Seventy-six. “COLOR OF AUTHORITY. The appearance or presumption of authority sanctioning a public officer’s actions. The authority derives from the officer’s apparent title to the office or from a writ or other apparently valid process the officer bears. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8TH Edition, pg. 282, and further;

Seventy-seven. “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ...... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; ....” 18 U.S.C.

§ 242 Violating Rights under Color of Law. [emphasis added], and further;

Seventy-eight. “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy to Violate Rights under Color of Law. [emphasis added], and further;

Seventy-nine. “ESTOPPEL – A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, pg. 1662, and further;

Eighty. “estoppel by silence. Estoppel that arises when a party is under a duty to speak but fails to do so. – Also termed estoppel by standing by; estoppel by inaction.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, pg. 1664, and further;

Eighty-one. “The principles of estoppel apply against the state as well as individuals.” Cal. v. Sims, 32 C3d 468, and further;

NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS

Verified Notice to all Agents

For

PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Donald John Trump

UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Michael R. Pompeo

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: William Barr

ARIZONA STATE GOVERNOR: Doug Ducey

ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE: Michele Reagan

USPS INSPECTOR GENERAL: Ann Calvaresi Barr

USPS YARNELL POSTMASTER: David Weeks

YAVAPAI SUPERIOR COURT CLERK: Donna McQuality

To AGENTS AND ACTORS for the STATE OF ARIZONA, AGENTS AND ACTORS for the several States and AGENTS AND ACTORS for the UNITED STATES: I want to pay you the honor and respect you deserve. The Affiant hereby duly accepts your Oaths of Office, being your open and binding offer of contract to form a firm and binding, private contract between you and this Affiant. I am pleased that when you said “so help me God”, you did swear, and are bound by your word, that you would perform all of your promises and duties including, but not limited to, your promise to uphold the Constitution for the united States of America and the Constitution for Arizona State, which includes protecting all of the Affiant’s rights. I trust you will be an honorable man or woman whose word is his or her bond, and that you will honor your private contract with this Affiant, completed by this notice of acceptance, by keeping your promises, and not all any third-party agents, acting without delegated or regulatory authority, to interfere in your duty to this Affiant.

Respectfully accepted:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LeRoy-Melvin: Anderson, Affiant

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ Seal

VERIFIED WAIVER OF TORT

Definition of terms:

Waiver of Tort. [“the election, by an injured party, for purposes of redress, to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract, which he may enforce, instead of an injury by fraud or wrong, for the committing of, which he may demand damages, compensatory or exemplary”. Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition, page 1418].

I, John-Henry: Doe, a private, natural man on the land hereby accept the Oaths of Office of the agents or their successors in interest, or assigns as listed, for the following entities:

By his autograph, John-Henry: Doe accepts said Oaths, which constitutes your open and binding offer of contract to form a firm and binding, private contract between John-Henry: Doe and the public officials and their offices, agents and employees. This implied contract comes into full force by your actions to trespass upon the rights and freedoms of the lawful living private man, John-Henry: Doe, whom you have openly sworn to protect. The Constitution for the united States of America clearly states at Article 1, section 10, “No state shall . . . . pass any . . . . Law, impairing the Obligation of Contracts”, [which has been upheld in the united States supreme Court case of Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) over 1,600 times (Shepards Citations)].

Should any listed officer or agent of the above listed corporations fail to rebut this Acceptance of Oath of Office contract, this document shall serve as your Oath by contract as written herein by your tacit procuration.

By your offer and this acceptance, both parties willingly and intentionally agree to the terms of this implied contract:

All USPS postmasters, agents and representatives

All state officials, agents and representatives

All federal officials, agents and representatives

NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IS PARAMOUNT AND MANDATORY

VERIFIED EXPRESS NOTICE OF WAIVER OF TORT TO ALL WHO TRESPASS

This is an implied contract and attaches only upon the actors, agents, or representatives of a government entity who by their conduct elect to enjoin this contract. Performance by conduct constitutes acceptance.

Trespass upon the issuer of this binding Agreement Instrument by any actors, agents, or representatives of a government entity acting under color of law, color of authority, or color of office outside the accepted forum, shall constitute an agreement to damages in the amount of Two Thousand (2,000) Troy ounces .999 fine silver as compensation for each injury, occurrence of breach, or trespass on rights or property. Additionally, actors, agents, or government representatives who directly or indirectly trespass upon the living private man hereby agree to pay Five Thousand (5,000) Troy ounces .999 fine silver as compensation per each hour of involuntary servitude, or coerced incarceration, or coerced detention or coerced booking of the physical body of the living private man, John-Henry: Doe.

Finally, any actors, agents, or government representatives who violate their sworn Oath of Office hereby agree to forfeit their bond in total to John-Henry: Doe, as compensation for damages.

Should the actors, agents or government representatives who violate their accepted Oath of Office fail to provide the agreed compensation upon demand, they hereby agree to a lien upon any real property, funds, pensions or other assets.

ALL PERSONS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND OFFICERS OPERATING UNDER ORDERS OF THE USPS POSTMASTER, USPS INSPECTOR GENERAL, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, NAME COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, COUNTY NAME SUPERIOR COURT, CITY NAME MUNICIPAL COURT, COUNTY NAME DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY NAME POLICE DEPARTMENT who commit injury by trespass upon the living private, natural man, John-Henry: Doe under color of law without evidence of a signed contract or injured party, or lawful order and verified assessment will cause attachment of this VERIFIED EXPRESS NOTICE OF WAIVER OF TORT. Continued proceeding in trespass shows acceptance of this Contract and provides evidence of your intent to implement the terms of the VERIFIED EXPRESS NOTICE OF WAIVER OF TORT and affix said lien(s).

EXPRESS SPECIFIC RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:

I explicitly reserve all my Natural rights as a private American under contract Law of the Divine Creator without prejudice and, without recourse to me. I do not consent to compelled performance under any contract that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the benefits or privileges of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

Subscribed and solemnly Affirmed under the pains and penalties of Perjury of Fundamental American Law this ________ day of the ___________ month, in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty, and of the independence of the United States of America, the two hundred forty four.

John-Henry: Doe, sui juris

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seal

Name state )

Name county ) sworn and subscribed:

Without the United States )

Appears, one John-Henry: Doe, who is known to me to be the one whose

Signature/Autograph subscribes this Instrument and who solemnly Affirms the same to be the

Truth and nothing but the Truth under the pains and penalties of Perjury of Fundamental

American Law before me, a Notary Public, this _______ day of the _________ month, AD 2020.

Witness my hand and official seal:

_______________________________________

My commission expires: ___________________

Inclusion of a notarization is for identification and attestation purposes only. Use of a Notary does not confer jurisdiction. The Notary is not a party to this notice / contract / affidavit and has no interest in, or liability pertaining to, the outcome of this notification procedure.

WITNESSES LIVING ON NAME COUNTY LAND:

____________________________ _________________________ ___________

Signature Printed Name Date

____________________________ _________________________ ___________

Signature Printed Name Date

____________________________ _________________________ ___________

Signature Printed Name Date

References:

Bills of Lading Act

Admiralty Extension Act

The Public Vessels Act

Suits in Admiralty Act

Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act

False Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7)

Lanham Act , see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

Postal Reorganization Act

Federal Tort Claims Act

Administrative Procedure Act

Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act:

(Old H.R. 4970 from the last Congress)

Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 § 80113

Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 §: 80116.

Title 46 U. S. A. Appendix, Ch. 19-A § 740.

Title  28  U. S. codes § 1605

Title: 46: U. S. Codes Chapter: 22:§: 781.

-----------------------

JURAT

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download