9/11 victim families,. can now sue the CIA for funding the 9/11 attacks | 9/11: How the CIA Destroyed America

9/11: How The CIA Destroyed America

The attack on 9/11 was the largest terrorist attack on the United States in the history of the nation, with nearly 3,000 people perishing and thousands more suffering from chronic illness due to the terrorist attacks.

The accused group of hijackers, affiliated with Al Qaeda and under the guidance of Osama bin Laden, were immediately to blame.

Understanding the origin of terrorist attacks on domestic soil does not take very much time, when you take into consideration a plan called "Operation Northwoods." ...

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/article/9-11-how-the-cia-destroyed-america

___

Related:

Why were the Executive Offices of Raytheon keeping tabs as to Paul Andrew Mitchell's status?
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/12/why-is-raytheon-keeping-tabs-as-to-paul-andrew-mitchells-status.html

911 False Flag - American Traitors & Mossad
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/12/911-false-flag-american-traitors-mossad.html

March 1, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Saint John Hunt re: E. Howard Hunt's JFK Assassination Confession | Interview on We The People with Jesse Ventura

Saint John Hunt: My Father's JFK Confession
Notorious superspy E. Howard Hunt's eldest son, Saint John Hunt, joins Jesse for a revealing interview about his father's career as a CIA agent and Watergate conspirator. Saint John speaks out on his father's shocking revelations to him about those responsible for JFK's assassination, as well as E. Howard Hunt's involvement in the Bay of Pigs and plots to kill Fidel Castro. Plus, new details about the mysterious death of Saint John's mother.
 
Listen or download (right-click 'save as'):

SaintJohnHunt_MyFathersJFKConfession_Ventura_WeThePeople

 
Refs: 
 
We The People with Jesse Ventura
http://www.ora.tv/wethepeople
 

JFK Murder Truth telling - Heading to the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/11/jfk-murder-truth-telling-heading-to-the-grassy-knoll-on-november-22nd-50th-anniversary.html

 

February 28, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Ending homelessness SAVES money; monetary reform and public banks should fund this now

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/ending-homelessness-saves-money-monetary-reform-public-banks-fund-now.html

Utah has reduced homelessness by 78%, and has targeted ending homelessness this year.

The US federal agency, US Interagency Council on Homelessness states all 50+ economic cost-benefit studies conclude it costs less to provide homeless Americans with shelter, food, health care, and job training than doing nothing at all.

The greatest savings come from decreased emergency room visits, police calls, and court time. What isn’t counted, and significant, is the increase of business in areas where the homeless are vagrants.  In addition, these studies show most participants find jobs and leave these programs.

A 2014 study in Florida reports taxpayers save over $20,000 per homeless person when they are provided basic services rather than languishing on the streets. An academic paper from two University of Pennsylvania professors document it’s more cost-effective to end homelessness than endure it.

Richard Cho, US Interagency Council on Homelessness Policy Director, documents similar studies from New York CityBoston, Denver, Seattle, Chicago, San FranciscoLos Angeles, with smaller cities in Connecticut, and rural areas in Maine that all research have found it’s more cost-effective, intelligent, and moral to end homelessness.



--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
___
 
Related:
 

February 28, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

"Lost in Space?" CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED After Investigators Find 32,744 “Lost” IRS Emails

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/criminal-investigation-launched-after-investigators-find-32744-lost-irs-emails/

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED After Investigators Find 32,744 “Lost” IRS Emails

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Subject: IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal probe
To: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>


http://xrepublic.tv/node/12418

The IRS’s inspector general confirmed Thursday it is conducting a criminal investigation into how Lois G. Lerner’s emails disappeared, saying it took only two weeks for investigators to find hundreds of tapes the agency’s chief had told Congress were irretrievably destroyed.

Investigators have already scoured 744 backup tapes and gleaned 32,774 unique emails, but just two weeks ago they found an additional 424 tapes that could contain even more Lerner emails, Deputy Inspector General Timothy P. Camus told the House Oversight Committee in a rare late-night hearing meant to look into the status of the investigation.

“There is potential criminal activity,” Mr. Camus said.

More here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/irs-watchdog-reveals-lois-lerner-missing-emails-no/#ixzz3SxfHZusj

In a 2013 report, the inspector general said the IRS had improperly targeted conservative and tea party groups’ applications for nonprofit status, asking repeated intrusive questions and delaying their applications well beyond a reasonable time. Some of those groups are still waiting, with their applications now pending for years.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and Oversight Committee chairman, said the ongoing investigations undercut President Obama’s assertion last year that there was no evidence of corruption in the IRS’s targeting.

“I have no idea how the president came to such a definitive conclusion without all the facts,” he said.




February 28, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Computer spyware violates human rights guidelines watchdog

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: Kyle R Bennett <kyle@hardocp.com>,
Ryan Shrout <rshrout@pcper.com>
cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM
subject: FYI: Watchdog says computer spyware violates human rights guidelines
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com Filter messages from this mailing list
http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/
http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/covenant.htm
http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/reservations.htm

Declarations:

"(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of
articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.

See also:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Watchdog says computer spyware violates human rights guidelines
To: SupremeLaw


My Comment:

SupremeLaw 4 minutes ago

Privacy is a fundamental Right, and that Right is recognized in at least 2 Human Rights Treaties, which are elevated to supreme Law of the Land by the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  Nevertheless, when the U.S. Senate ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appended a Declaration rendering that Treaty "not self-executing".  This means that a private Citizen may NOT enforce that Treaty in any American Court at present, and the Department of Justice will not enforce that Treaty withOUT "implementing legislation" enacted by the Congress.  Never mind that more than a dozen Acts of Congress already enable private rights of action for violations of Treaties e.g. Habeas Corpus statutes: 28 USC 2241, 2242 etc.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2241

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or

(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or

(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States;

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/26/spyware-maker-violating-human-rights-guidelines/

If you think that commercial software designed to spy on computers is problematic, you're not alone. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's UK contact has determined that Gamma International's approach to selling its FinFisher spyware violates human rights guidelines. The developer not only doesn't have a human rights policy, but doesn't investigate clients for the possibility of abuse -- there's little stopping it from selling FinFisher to an oppressive government. The contact couldn't confirm that Gamma sold its software to Bahrain, which used the surveillance tool to target the political activists who prompted the investigation (shown here). However, the OECD isn't shy about pressing for change. It wants Gamma to take evidence of abuse and government advice into account whenever it sells software, and to cooperate when there are signs that someone is using FinFisher for nefarious purposes.

--
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

___

Related:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

February 28, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: CONFIDENTIAL / FYI: Delay + Formal Answer to your question re: USA passport

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: "Thomas J. Brown" <thomas@thomasbrown.org>
cc: Ken O'Keefe <tjp.kenokeefe@gmail.com>,
SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM
subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL / FYI: Delay + Formal Answer to your question re: USA passport
 
https://www.facebook.com/thomas.j.brown.18?fref=ts

see:

A CONSTITUTIONAL TIMEBOMB:

Is New Zealand’s Government and court system unlawful?

 
[begin quote]

Henke says the bizarre situation has arisen where

Australia has sworn to uphold the international declarations on human rights, but

where Australian courts have ruled the declarations do not apply domestically.

New Zealand too, is guilty of the same action by virtue of Government policy.

According to Philip Joseph, the New Zealand Government, like Australia,

has not allowed our domestic law to automatically recognise international law

even if NZ is a signatory to it.

[end quote]

 

Those 2 paragraphs parallel almost perfectly the situation

America is now facing with the "not self-executing" Declaration

appended to the U.S. Senate's ratification of the ICCPR:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/reservations.htm

 

Declarations:

"(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of
articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.

Of course, that Declaration has now been formally challenged

for violating the Petition Clause in the First Amendment

and the Bicameralism Clause, both in the U.S. Constitution:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/draft/first.draft.htm

 

For those who are presently not familiar with those 2 Clauses,

the Petition Clause clearly states "Congress shall make no law ...."

and the Bicameralism Clause mandates approval by 2 Houses of Congress

for "domestic" legislation to be legally binding.

 

http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1st-amend

Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or abridging
the freedom  of speech,  or of  the press;   or  the right of the
people peaceably  to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.

http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:1

 

Section 1.  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested
in a  Congress of  the United  States, which  shall consist  of a
Senate and House of Representatives.

Under the Treaty Clause, the U.S. House of Representatives

does NOT vote on proposed treaties:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#2:2:2

 

The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the

U.S. House of Representatives never voted on

that "not self-executing" Declaration and, accordingly,

that Declaration can NOT have any domestic legal effect!

 

The ICCPR  stands as supreme Law of the Land

throughout the United States of America --

State Zone and federal zone both!

 

Semper fidelis!

 

/s/ Paul

 


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Thomas J. Brown <thomas@thomasbrown.org> wrote:

I have many times told the kaumatua of your noble deeds and honorable stand, I pray for and look forward to the day you can meet them. God bless you brother :)

On 27/02/2015 3:47 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:
The United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General,
requests the courtesy of your kind regards extended to all our native friends
throughout the entire land of New Zealand.

Get some rest, Tommy.  You earned it!

/s/ Paul


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Thomas J. Brown <thomas@thomasbrown.org> wrote:

Thank you most kindly good sir! I'm falling asleep, will be able to perform cognitional processing once rested. So appreciated, Tom

On 27/02/2015 3:04 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S." <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Delay + Formal Answer to your question re: USA passport
To: "Thomas J. Brown" <thomas@thomasbrown.org>


>  Btw they asked me to surrender USA passport, I'm going to check with embassy, any knowledge re that?


Thank you, Mr. Brown, for contacting our office for Counsel
concerning the matter raised in your question above.

We will endeavor to answer it in our capacity as an
Agent of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.,
and as a Private Attorney General under the Civil RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1964.
First of all, our office has never been informed of any action(s)
you may have taken to expatriate from your natural born status
as a Citizen of one of the United States of America:

On this point, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that
waivers of Fundamental Rights must be knowingly intelligent acts,
done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
likely consequences.
 
If our information about you is not up-to-date in this regard, please advise ASAP.
 
Your present domicile in New Zealand did not, in and of itself,
constitute an intentional act to expatriate from your lawful status
as a State Citizen under American laws never repealed.
This is so primarily because you also enjoy a Fundamental Right
to travel, and you did exercise that Right when you traveled
to New Zealand in the company of your late spouse.

Please also accept our sincere condolences for the tragic and
painful loss you endured at her passing.  As you may recall,
the three of us enjoyed a long and wonderful lunch several
years ago in Northern California, USA, and one of the topics
we discussed on that occasion was the Law of Citizenship in America.

She is and was one of the most warm and loving spouses
I have ever met.  I shall always remember my joy at hearing
her "foreign" accent -- one of my favorites, to be sure,
as I hope my accent was just as "foreign" to her.

 
Furthermore, both New Zealand -and- the United States have formally
ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR").

Despite an attempt by the U.S. Senate to render that Treaty
"not self-executing", you should already know that our office
has formally challenged that Declaration for violating at least
two (2) fundamental guarantees in the U.S. Constitution:

Accordingly, your Fundamental Immunity against double jeopardy
evidently has been violated by New Zealand government personnel
insofar as they have openly refused to recognize the verdict of acquittal
which you already received from a jury of your peers.

See Article 14, Section 7 in the ICCPR supra:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/covenant.htm
7.   No one  shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an
offence for  which he  has  already  been  finally  convicted  or
acquitted in  accordance with the law and penal procedure of each
country.
Allow me to recommend that the United States (federal government)
apply for leave to intervene ex rel. in your second criminal proceeding,
for purposes of asserting your several Fundamental Rights under the
Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended,
and under the ICCPR as ratified by the Government of New Zealand.

 
CONCLUSION:  In light of all the above, there appears to be no legal reason,
or obligation, requiring you to surrender your USA passport at this time.

Please feel free to share this Formal Answer with Ambassadors in the
appropriate Embassies of New Zealand and the United States.


Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm in this matter.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Thomas J. Brown <thomas@thomasbrown.org> wrote:

Hey Paul, my co-defendents in error took lawyers so jury disempaneled & adjourned till Nov 2 give them time. Was looking forward to winning next week, more time to focus. Will keep you posted, heading home tonight. Be well bro! Tom

Btw they asked me to surrender USA passport, I'm going to check with embassy, any knowledge re that?




--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

February 27, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Bank of Montreal now aware All Federal Reserve Banks are now IN CONTEMPT of the AUTOMATIC STAY expressly authorized by 11 U.S.C. 362

Updating.. re-visit shortly

Bank of Montreal now aware All Federal Reserve Banks are now IN CONTEMPT of the AUTOMATIC STAY expressly au...

Refs:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/12/public-legal-notice-by-united-states-ex-rel-all-federal-reserve-banks-are-now-in-contempt-of-the-aut.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

Janet Yellen Is Freaking Out About ‘Audit The Fed’ – Here Are 100 Reasons Why She Should Be
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2015/02/janet-yellen-is-freaking-out-about-audit-the-fed-here-are-100-reasons-why-she-should-be.html

February 26, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Janet Yellen Is Freaking Out About ‘Audit The Fed’ – Here Are 100 Reasons Why She Should Be

http://investmentwatchblog.com/janet-yellen-is-freaking-out-about-audit-the-fed-here-are-100-reasons-why-she-should-be/

Janet Yellen is very alarmed that some members of Congress want to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time since it was created. 

If the Fed is doing everything correctly, why should Yellen be alarmed? 

What does she have to hide? 

During testimony before Congress on Tuesday, she made “central bank independence” sound like it was the holy grail. 

Even though every other government function is debated politically in this country, Yellen insists that what the Federal Reserve does is “too important” to be influenced by the American people. 

Does any other government agency ever dare to make that claim? 

But of course the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. 

It is a private banking cartel that has far more power over our money and our economy than anyone else does. 

And later on in this article I am going to share with you dozens of reasons why Congress should shut it down.

[end excerpt]


More here:

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

February 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

[ronpaul-48] FW: Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the 'Greediest Generation'

 

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com 

11:51 PM (10 hours ago)
 
to ronpaul-48
 
 
If you think that anyone in DC is protecting Social Security, think again because they have been reducing it by pretending that inflation is less than half of what it really is since the 1980s.  

Plus, the puppets in DC actually work for the banksters, and in 1913, the puppets in DC unconstitutionally delegated the U.S. Government's Constitutional power to print notes to the banksters who got obscenely rich and then used that power to impoverish the American people.

See the letter to Senator Alan Simpson below and pass this on.  


From: debracaso@hotmail.com
Subject: Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the 'Greediest Generation'
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:40:01 -0500

Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the  'Greediest Generation' as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.

Here's a response in a letter from   PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

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

"Hey, Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!!!

1. As a career politician,

you have been on the public dole (teat) for FIFTY YEARS.

 

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 y ears old. I am now 63).

 

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in 'an interest bearing account' for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of losers in return for votes , thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

 

4. Recently, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your"shill commission"  are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN .

 

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from day one, and now"you" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

 

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetents" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off   YOUR debt.

 

7. To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit"  to your incompetence . Well, Captain Bullshit , I have a few questions for YOU:

       1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

       2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

       3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

       4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

 

It is you, Captain Bullshit , and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes, your job and retirement security at our expense,you leech.

 

That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank you miserable son of a bitch .

 

NO, I did not stutter.

 

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements".   WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

I have been paying in to the SS system for 4 8 years.   It's my money-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks.

 

EVERYONE!!!

If you like the way things are in America delete this.

 

If you agree with what a Montana citizen, Patty Myers, says, please PASS IT  ON!!

___
 

Hey Deb, 

Re: "
My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in 'an interest bearing account' for decades..."   

Its a bullshit lie Deb. For the truth see: 
  http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf
Read pages 113 through 134.  
(
also see page 107 starting with the last two paragraphs and read through page 112)
so you can start spreading the truth about Social Security, Medicare, etc instead of re-circulating 
the bullshit lies that are constantly regurgitated on the internet.

You can't make good assessments or good decisions based on false information. The Freedom 
movement is awash in garbage like the (below) post you forwarded.....probably spread by the government
itself in order to keep the population running in circles instead of hanging politicians. It is dishonest
and we do our fellow citizens (co-owners of the Republic) a huge disservice by not correcting this crap when
it comes our way.

'nuff said,

 

Jake

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."    

                                                                           ~~~ Mark Twain

 ___

 

Better yet, go here:

 

WWW.CurrencyAlert.US

 

and get the most important three little books in America today......

 

 

 

and order one of these:  http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212

so that you will actually know what you are talking about  ...... instead of taking someone else's word for it.

 

 

 

Jake

 

 

 

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."   ~~~ George Bernard Shaw

___

Drew:

Okay, , i understand that the FED was created in 1913,  it's not a federal govt bank, it is a private bank , there was that secret meeting at the time on jeckell island in GA,,etc etc,,,i wikipediad the thing
 
Can someone tell me who(the real names) the Current private shareholders of this Bank are?? .....if its banksters, then who? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?  that Rothschild dude?......anyone know the actual names of current beneficiaries of this FED Bank?
 
And the way these shareholders get paid is thru all the billions in interest of the US bonds/treasuries the FED has bought?

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA:

Almost everything that everyone believes is bullshit.  For instance, most people don't realize that the U.S. government has the Constitutional power to issue notes and coins, that it gave away that power to some crooked banksters in 1913, that they have been issuing notes which are not redeemable for anything from the government for decades, and therefore, that the whole debt could be eliminated by simply taking back the power to issue notes which was unconstitutionally and illegally given to banksters 100 years ago.

___

Drew:

Forgive me for asking , but could someone give me like three actual real names of these banksters?......so often i here this stuff about the Fed & 1913, but i cant give any real names of the beneficiaries/shareholders from back the in 1913 or now in 2015....

___

RD:

THE BOOK "THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND" WRITTEN BY ED GRIFFIN GIVES ALL THE NAMES THAT ATTENDED THAT MEETING IN 1913.

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA:

Maybe Jake has that info.  It is hard to find, but FDR's family was one of the original FED bankster families, and he stole our rights to enforce the law by passing the Federal Rules of Procedure which eliminated our right to petition for a redress of grievances by presenting evidence to grand juries and asking for an indictment and our right to trials by juries in civil actions by allowing a judge to grand summary judgment if he thinks that there are material no facts in dispute and one side should win without bothering with that quaint old jury trial.  

Fore more info, see http://tiny.cc/3uvn3wSee and see what George Carlin had to say about our rights at  http://tiny.cc/5fqlox

Mark

___

Drew:

Thank you....and how about simply one name for today's times?

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA:

As I said earlier, it is hard to find that info.  FDR's family was one of the original FED banksters as were the Rockefeller and Morgan families.  I expect that Griffin's book or his web site may have some good info about who was involved, but I've never bothered to check into that as the FED's abuses are due to the theft of our rights by FDR to secure justice.  If those rights were restored, then the FED wouldn't be able to abuse its power.  Of course, the FED should also not be allowed to control issuance of U.S. notes, but I think that is far less important than the theft of our rights to petition for redress and to jury trials. 

___

Drew,

 

Full names & relationships are given in this video which I sent out to all of you on Feb 1, 2015:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM   

under the subject line "Now You Know  -  JFK"

 

I don't recall the names. (For some reason, personal names don't stick with me very well unless I make a substantial effort to plant them in memory)  Most were unfamiliar to me, with the exception of the surname "Rothchild".  When you watch the video......write them down......and you'll be able to relay them to the rest of us.

 

Jake

___

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
cc: Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM
subject: Re: [ronpaul-48] FW: Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the 'Greediest Generation'
Maybe both U.S. Senators need to know that
Nancy Dell Freudenthal, L. Robert Murray and
Stephan Harris have been formally charged
with kidnapping and attempted murder,

because ALL THREE WORK IN THAT SAME BUILDING:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/vcc6/

 
You can send a "Courtesy Copy" to Alan K. Simpson

if you can find his "retirement" address:

February 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Move Over, Jihadists — "Sovereign Citizens" Seen as America’s Top Terrorist Threat

But ... BUT ... hasn't the U.S. Supreme Court already identified the American People
as "sovereigns without subjects"?

I'm confused:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm


The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

 

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

 

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;  but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.  And the law is the definition and limitation of power.  It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision;  and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage.  But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men."  For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

 

[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

[emphasis added]

 

In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution.  [cites omitted]  The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains.  The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.

 

[Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]

[emphasis added]

 

No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore, without considering the sovereignty that resides in "US", the People.  The Supreme Court has often identified the People as the source of sovereignty in our republican form of government.  Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to every State in the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words:

 

      Section 4The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ....

 

[Constitution for the United States of America]

[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]

 

What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government?  It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of "government":

 

      Republican government.  One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.  In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

 

The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation of governments in Europe, and government in these United States*** of America, as follows:

 

      In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State;  and generally includes legislative and judicial authority. ... Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact.  In America, however, the case is widely different.  Our government is founded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

 

[Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

[emphasis added]

 

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad;  but it is evident that they 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 until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

 

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

 

The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national;  their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**.  This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.

 

[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]

[italics in original, emphasis added]

 

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress.  The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**.  They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations.  The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government.  It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities;  but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

 

[First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]

[emphasis added]

 


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
___
 
Related:
 

February 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink