You are on page 1of 36

It Aint Me

David S.; DeRiemer, all rights reserved address used without prejudice to rights
Care of, - 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in real Delaware land
Not Federal Regional District or fiction military Venue "DE")
No military fiction Venue zip Code

Court of Common Pleas Sussex County February, 26, 1998


address used without prejudice to rights
c/o, - The Circle, Court House
Georgetown,
military district fiction The "State Of Delaware"
military/martial fiction law district venue #19947

Dear Common Pleas Court Clerk,

Enclosed herewith, returned, rejected and refused for fraud are legal
documents, postmarked (date) which were delivered fraudulently "without
prejudice", opened by "Mistake", and they are "Returned to Sender".

As I do not have "enough information or knowledge upon which to base a


responsive answer" - it is apparently not intended for me. As I am not a
trustee/fiduciary or transfer agent, and As I am not a resident or resident
agent, it is apparently not intended for me.

As I am not "Trading As" "d.b.a." or "a.k.a." DAVID S. DERIEMER, it is apparently


not intended for me.

The "Unliquidated Debt" (Res), (identified by Instrument/Document) which is


the "subject-matter" of this action, is not within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Court.

I do not understand these papers.

As it is illegal for me to knowingly accept or keep mail or papers particularly


legal papers, that are fraudulently delivered - the are returned to you for
fraud, fraudulent venue, and no valid Subject matter as pertains to me a actual
live flesh and blood American man.

Any mail or other (legal) papers intended for my attention may be directed as
shown: David S.; DeRiemer, all rights reserved
address used without prejudice to rights
Care of, - 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in real
Delaware No zip Code

Sincerely yours,
David S. DeRiemer, real natural man
not Corporate Fiction Person subject
Article - Testimonial

"real live man, or FICTION ? - "It Ain't Me." "

This "Letter" (with Papers Returned) saved me $12,000.00


and/or jail by: David S. DeRiemer, - Peoples Rights
Association c/o, - 1624 Savannah Rd.A.B., Lewes, Delaware No
zip used

I received (all rights reserved/without prejudice to rights)


by mail, Nine (9) letters/"Statements of Amounts Due" in Nine
(9) separate envelopes from the "Court". They said "pay the
amount due, or there will be a "Contempt Of Court" HEARING,
Wednesday at 1:30 p.m., for failure to pay", and I would go
to jail.

After photocopying the envelopes and their contents, - I


marked the envelopes "Opened by Mistake" (per State and
U.C.C. section 1-103 "Underlying fundamental principles of
Law"), and marked "Return to Sender" on each envelope, and
they were each "Returned" by the Post Office.

I then sent CERTIFIED MAIL (all rights reserved) the enclosed


"It Ain't Me" letter (with copies of the returned Marked
numbered envelopes attached as exhibits). It said that the
Defendant is a fiction - since I am not a fiction "It ain't
me". The Defendant spells its name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS -
since I spell my name with lower case letters "It ain't me".
The Defendant's "address" is at a fiction zone titled "DE".
Since I have no contact, no contract, no nexus, and no
connection to fiction zone "DE", - "It Ain't me". The
Defendant's #'address" is at a fiction zone number 19958.
Since I have no contract, no contact, no nexus, and no
connection to fiction zone 19958, - "It ain't me". Since it
is against the law for me to accept or keep Mail or papers,
especially legal papers, that are apparently intended for
another, it would be Mail Fraud for me to keep them, so they
are refused, rejected and "Returned To Sender", envelope
copies attached hereto. If it is in fact me, the real live
natural flesh and blood Man of GOD who you wish to contact, -
spell my name with lower case letters, my "temporary Mail
Location" is "Care of" 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware
(spelled fully out) and NO VOLUNTARY ZIP CODE USED, just as
it appears on thin "In Forma Pauperis" form.

We suspected that if I "failed to appear" they would simply


send out a "SWAT TEAM" to personally arrest me an forcibly
bring me in, - so on Wednesday,I walked into the Courtroom at
1:30. The room was dark and empty.

I went down to the Court Clerk's Office to inquire. They said


"Wait a minute" and telephoned to the Chief Clerk. I waited
out in the lobby and when she saw me, she said "Oh, Mr.
DeRiemer, what are You doing here?". I said "Well, you mailed
these nine (9) NOTICES that there was to be a HEARING here
now". She said "But, - you sent the NOTICES back." [In other
words "BECAUSE you sent the NOTICES back, We did not obtain
"Service of Process".]

I then said, "Well, now that I am here, I would like to talk


to the Judge."

She said "What about?"

I said "I have this 'In Forma Pauperis' Form here and I'd
like to talk to him about it."

She said "Can I see it?". I said "Sure". She said,


"Well, If you want him to look at it, we better
"clock

I said, "How about "clock" my copy in also, to


prove that I was here at the appointed hour and
date. Also, I would like a written statement on
Court Stationery that I was here, and that No
"Capias" (Bench Warrant) will be issued later
today."

She said "O.K., but how will we notify you when the
HEARING on this In Forma Pauperis is scheduled, as
you don't get your mail."

I said, "sure I do. just spell my Name in lower


case letters, use "Care of" before
the "Mail Location", fully spell out "Delaware",
and use NO ZIP CODE NUMBER, and it will get to me
just fine.

She gave me one of those sickening sweet Government


employee all knowing "smiles", and went down the
Hall toward her office. I began to follow, but she
said "Just wait out here, and I'll be right back."

23 minutes later - she appeared with a single sheet


of Court Letterhead paper with two (2) sentences on
it. The FIRST ENTIRE SENTENCE WAS IN ALLCAPITAL
LETTERS, AND SAID "DAVID S. DERIEMER (no address or
"temporary Mail location" at all), HAD APPEARED AND
NO CAPIAS WOULD BE ISSUED, AT THIS TIME."

The second (2nd) sentence was in all lower case


letters, and said that the Hearing on the "In Forma
Pauperis" form, would be heard two weeks -from that
date Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. (The "In Forma
Pauperis" said that I didn't own the House that I
thought I owned; I didn't own the car that I
thought I owned; I didn't own any cash in my pocket
that I thought I owned; I didn't own the money that
I thought was in the Bank; I didn't own my physical
Body which I thought I owned,- or my wife, or my
children, or anything). It was signed Without
prejudice" in case I had made a "Mistake", so it
couldn't be introduced into evidence in any court
proceeding anyway.

The First HEARING was to have been about "Contempt


of Court" with pending jail time. Now, we are
talking "In Forma Pauperis" HEARING.

It is similar to a "Counter-Complaint", - and that


a Defendant Cannot do the impossible (since "No
Money" in circulation), and a Court cannot be
"unreasonable" by Ordering the impossible or
penalizing one for failure to perform the
impossible.

Two (2) weeks went by and Friday afternoon at 2:30


p.m., my wife received a telephone call from the
Judge's Personal Secretary not just the Clerk. She
said "Your Husband need not come to court Monday
morning, because the Judge has decided to "Take it
under Advisement'.

We suspected that they wanted to trick me into


"failure to appear" so they could dismiss my "In
Forma Pauperis". So, I called her back and asked
her to repeat the message, which she did. I then
asked for a letter of written confirmation of the
phone call, which she did send.

That has been almost one (1) year ago, and we have
not heard anything about either the "Contempt of
Court" or the "In Forma Pauperis" since.
CONCLUSIONS: The Judge had been put into a"catch
22" situation.

They didn't obtain "Service of Process" on the


fiction ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME Defendant so they
couldn't proceed against it, and they had a
"Petition for In Forma Pauperis from a party who is
not the Defendant and is not privy to the
case/suit. The judge couldn't hear the Petition
from a non-party to the case.

The distinction is between a FICTION, or a real


live natural flesh and blood man of GOD. Because
government is a fiction corporation, - it can only
have cognizance of other FICTIONS. This is the
reason that "Taxpayer License/ Taxpayer I.D.#/
Social Security Numbers" and "Driver Licenses"
(etc.) are only issued to FICTIONS, which have
their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Government FICTIONS cannot have contact or


acknowledge real live natural people. They can only
contact fiction "persons". "People" are real,
"persons" are fictions.

They might have sent over some "Constable" or


"Sheriff" to personally serve the "Court Papers" on
real live me, but that wouldn't have worked either.
SCENARIO # 2 -

A Chiropractor in Georgia, was served "Court


Papers" by a Deputy Sheriff on Friday Afternoon re:
a Court HEARING on Monday at 9:30 a.m., believing
that he couldn't act on them before the HEARING
time.

He didn't have time enough to mail the "Papers"


back to the Court, so He had a neighbor act as his
personal "Process Server", and had the Neighbor
personally "return the papers" along with the "It
Ain't Me" type letter, to the Deputy Sheriff that
afternoon. He asked for a "Receipt" that the
"Papers" had been returned for improper service.

The Deputy refused. So, The Neighbor simply said


"That's O.K., - I'll just sign an "AFFIDAVIT" to
the Court for the Chiropractor, that the "Papers"
have been returned. Have a nice day !"

The Neighbor turned and left the Office. While


getting into the car up the street, the
Chiropractor and Neighbor noticed both the Sheriff
and the Deputy running over to the Court House
before "Closing Time". They had earlier signed a
"Return Of Service" to the Court Clerk, that the
papers were served. They had to "remove" their
signature somehow from the official Court records,
because the "Papers" were back on their desk.

Two weeks later, the Chiropractor met the (would


have been) "Plaintiff" in a shopping Mall. He asked
"What Happened?"

The Plaintiff said "You didn't show up, and when


they called the case, the Attorneys, the Judge, and
my Attorney had a 'Side Bar consultation'. Then my
Attorney told me to go home and He would be in
touch with me later by letter." In other words
NOTHING HAPPENED. They never obtained "Service Of
Process" on him. He has never heard another word
about this incident. He raised the point that He,
the real live natural man, was not the fiction
PERSON named as Defendant.

The Lawyers and Judge, didn't want the "Real" vs.


"FICTION Person" issue to be raised "On the Record"
in their court. They "dropped" the case.

We Free real natural flesh and blood People of GOD


(not fiction Persons) should learn to avoid their
Administrative courts of "Discretion", and of "
Justice." "Justice - collection of the amount of
debt". We are considered already guilty, the
court's only obligation is to determine the "just
amount" of debt - same as the old "Star Chamber".

This procedure was used regarding a "civil" case. However,


the same philosophy applies to "Criminal" cases.
Notice, when they accuse one of something criminal, - they
never accuse you of violating a "Law". They can't Their
private "Lawyer-club meetings" are convened "in the interest
of justice", and/or "discretion" under the "Administration
(collection of debt) of Code".

That's why, - even if you go out and flat-out kill


someone, - they will not accuse you of "Murder".
They will accuse you of violation of some "Code
Title number and section number" which stands for
murder.

What they refer to as "criminal" is actually


"civil-criminal". It is really a "Contract penalty"
or penal Code violation, being "administered" to
fiction persons under presumption that you (We) are
enjoying some "Benefit, Privilege, Title of Nobility, or
opportunity offered" by government corporation. The "It Ain't
Me" letter raises "rebuttable presumption" that you (the real
live natural man), are not the fiction person Defendant -
despite the similar name. The important issue here is the
distinction between "real" versus "fiction". The fact that
the fiction's name is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, is only
prima facie evidence that it is the fiction.

The main issue is that you are nor the fiction Defendant of a
Legislature. You are real flesh & blood natural of GOD.

Example, - we had a man go into court, but he argued the name


spelling (small letters vs. Capital letters). The tricky
Lawyer-Judge finally said "Well then, what is your name?". He
gave his name verbally (making a contract with the court).
The sneaky tricky Judge then said "Let the record show the
Defendant is Mr. Blank 'also known as' Mr. BLANK." She had
Just by-passed the "real. vs. fiction" issue. Do NOT get
hung-up on thespelling". That is secondary. The main issue is
- are you real natural flesh and Blood of GOD, or a fiction
corporate "person" of government, and a "subject" therefore.

When they called his case, - What our Man should


have said is "Which one? The real man or the
fiction? . And repeated that phrase over and over,
regardless how many times and different ways they
tried to call him.

Enjoying the "Title of Nobility" as "Person" and/or "subject"


is a privilege granted from government and makes you
liable and subject to to' government "Code of Conduct" for
"subjects". The lawyers presume that everyone is enjoying the
benefit of corporate fiction subject" (14th Amendment, "slave
on government plantation") status and therefore owes a debt
back to government (excise Tax) in return for the
privilege/Benefit being enjoyed.

When one returns or "rejects" all government papers, refuses


to enter a "Plea", and refuses to "Post Bail or Bond" (for 48
hours Riverside County vs. McLaughlin), and Denies by WRITTEN
AFFIDAVIT that he is the fiction Defendant, they can NOT
proceed and can NOT hold you, beyond that 48 hours. And, yes,
you can sue for false imprisonment,(later) for the 48 hour
"unlawful detention" of a Non-fiction Subject.

A Man had a "problem" with the I.R.S. agency.

He sent every one of the "Papers" and envelopes which he had


received from I.R.S., - back to them (He kept photocopies), with a
photocopy of the envelopes (each Marked "Return to Sender -.No
such Party at this location") attached to the "It Ain't Me" Cover
letter.

Next time he checked - certain "Liens" which had previously been


"On The Record" were marked discharged.

If you are a Flesh and Blood Man or Woman (of GOD) - DO NOT steal
mail which is intended for a corporate fiction. It is against the law
to keep mail which does not belong to you.

By keeping mail directed to a corporate fiction you are admitting


that you must be (or you represent) that corporate fiction. When
you actually Go (voluntarily) into the Court, you remove all doubt
that you in fact DO "Represent" that ALL CAPITAL LETTER named
fiction.

Commerce is "any promise (future performance) in ink on paper".

Contracts are "Commerce".

"Notes" are "Commerce" (Federal Reserve Notes, etc.).

Corporations, Trusts, Associations, are fictions on paper-Commerce

All Insurance is "Admiralty" and future promise - "Commerce".

All Fictions are commerce.

The Courts have jurisdiction over all fiction entities and all
"Commerce".

THEREFORE', you are "subject" to the Admiralty /Commerce


/military Court, if you voluntarily show up, after returning All
papers of commerce with the "It- Ain't Me" cover letter with
copies/exhibits attached to it.

The "It Ain't Me" letter denies and challenges "Personam", "Venue",
and "Subject Matter" Primary elements of primary jurisdiction, -
which destroys their "Presumption", is "Rebuttable Presumption",
and they must reveal their FRAUD in order to refute the Written
DENIAL which is what the "It Ain't Me" letter is. They would rather
"Drop" or "dismiss" their case against you.
A professional Over-the-road (18 wheeler) Tractor-
Trailer Truck Driver, got a ticket for some rincky-dink
thing, (dirt on the license plate, or cracked Lens)When he
got home, he mailed CERTIFIED MAIL, the Ticket back to the
Arresting officer, at his Barracks address with the Neutral
Response #1 cover letter.

When the Trooper got his Ticket back, he went crying to the
"Court Clerk", who told him, "Never Mind,We'll take care of
this from here on in .

Several weeks later, Our Truck driver, got an envelope from


the Clerk's Office, with the "Ticket" in it, and a letter
saying that the note sent with the "Ticket" was frivolous,
without merit, without substance, and has no validity, and
his Court date was still Wednesday at 2:30, and if he didn't
send in the fine to the "Voluntary Assessment Center", before
then, if he didn't show up-for Court, a "Bench Warrant"
(Capias) would be issued for his arrest for "Contempt of
Court".

Our Truck Driver, this time Bent CERTIFIED MAIL the "Ticket
with the"Neutral Response #1" cover letter, back to the Court
Clerk. (because it came from them this time)

Several weeks later, Our Truck driver, got another


envelope from the Clerk's Office, with the "Ticket"
in it again, and a letter again saying that the
note sent with the "Ticket" was frivolous, without
merit, without substance, and has no validity, and
his Court date was still Wednesday at 2:30, and if
he didn't send in the fine to the "Voluntary
Assessment Center", before then, if he didn't show
up for Court, a "Bench Warrant" (Capias) would be
issued for his arrest for "Contempt of Court".

NOTICE that the "Ticket" still was "returned" to


him. If it so "frivolous", how come they keep
sending the "Ticket" back ?

Eventually, the Court Date came and went. Our Truck


Driver did NOT go. He Never had NOTICE.

In his travels, Our Truck Driver had to pull into a "Weigh


Station" and the Truck was "Overweight", so they beckoned him
into the "Scale House", to give "the Boss" a "Ticket" (Bill)
for being "Overweight". Our man thought he would have a
ration of other problems. But when he got out from the "Scale
House" they said "There is nothing on your license,- so Have
a Nice Day."
Lesson: It is a "Child's Game" of "Hot Potato, Hot Potato".
If you hold the "Papers" (Hot Potato) on Court Day, you are
"it" If you don't -You are "Not It". They do NOT have
"Service of Process". They do NOT gain your "Appearance" in
their court.

Neutral response:

Print & Cut along dotted line

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

These enclosed documents were inadvertently received, and


opened by mistake. These enclosed document(s), which
appear to
be____________________________________________________, are
not understandable, acknowledgeable or recognizable
under the penalty of FalsePersonation must be returned.

The enclosure herein contains the aforementioned and


misdirected documents; as there is not enough knowledge
or information disclosed to form a responsive answer, said
documents are being returned forthwith.

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

Singular response

print & cut along dotted line

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

I inadvertently received the enclosed document(s) which


appear to be

____________________________________________________
I do not know what this is all about. I do not understand or
recognize these document(s).

I do not have enough knowledge or information to form a


responsive answer.

So I am returning these document(s),

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions

Immediately Place documents to be returned in a new


envelope. Immediately Address new envelope with
document sender's address, also use this address as the
return address. DO NOT use YOUR name or address on
this envelope, Do not use any headings or signature on your
response. The object is to return the presentment in the
most neutral, non-committal manner possible Immediately.
Do not rebut the issue or address anything in their
documents. You simply return unwanted presentments. This
is simply a misdirected posting being returned to the sender.

Human Rights / NO-TAX ACADEMY


address used without prejudice to rights
c/o UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
c/o 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in Delaware real land - Emer-ica
(not fiction military zone "DE")
no Military fiction zone # used

Courtesy copy may also be sent (anonymously) to the court


clerk
A professional Over-the-road (18
wheeler) Tractor-Trailer Truck Driver,
got a ticket for some rincky-dink thing, (dirt
on the license plate, or cracked Lens)When he
got home, he mailed CERTIFIED MAIL, the Ticket
back to the Arresting officer, at his Barracks
address with the Neutral Response #1 cover
letter.

When the Trooper got his Ticket back, he went


crying to the "Court Clerk", who told him,
"Never Mind,We'll take care of this from here
on in .

Several weeks later, Our Truck driver, got an


envelope from the Clerk's Office, with the
"Ticket" in it, and a letter saying that the
note sent with the "Ticket" was frivolous,
without merit, without substance, and has no
validity, and his Court date was still
Wednesday at 2:30, and if he didn't send in
the fine to the "Voluntary Assessment Center",
before then, if he didn't show up-for Court, a
"Bench Warrant" (Capias) would be issued for
his arrest for "Contempt of Court".

Our Truck Driver, this time Bent CERTIFIED


MAIL the "Ticket with the"Neutral Response #1"
cover letter, back to the Court Clerk.
(because it came from them this time)

Several weeks later, Our Truck driver,


got another envelope from the Clerk's
Office, with the "Ticket" in it again,
and a letter again saying that the
note sent with the "Ticket" was
frivolous, without merit, without
substance, and has no validity, and
his Court date was still Wednesday at
2:30, and if he didn't send in the
fine to the "Voluntary Assessment
Center", before then, if he didn't
show up for Court, a "Bench Warrant"
(Capias) would be issued for his
arrest for "Contempt of Court".

NOTICE that the "Ticket" still was


"returned" to him. If it so
"frivolous", how come they keep
sending the "Ticket" back ?
Eventually, the Court Date came and
went. Our Truck Driver did NOT go. He
Never had NOTICE.

In his travels, Our Truck Driver had to pull


into a "Weigh Station" and the Truck was
"Overweight", so they beckoned him into the
"Scale House", to give "the Boss" a "Ticket"
(Bill) for being "Overweight". Our man thought
he would have a ration of other problems. But
when he got out from the "Scale House" they
said "There is nothing on your license,- so
Have a Nice Day."

Lesson: It is a "Child's Game" of "Hot Potato,


Hot Potato". If you hold the "Papers" (Hot
Potato) on Court Day, you are "it" If you
don't -You are "Not It". They do NOT have
"Service of Process". They do NOT
gain your "Appearance" in their court.

David S.; DeRiemer, all rights reserved address used without


prejudice to rights
Care of, - 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in real Delaware land
Not Federal Regional District or fiction military Venue "DE")
No military fiction Venue zip Code

Court of Common Pleas Sussex County February, 26, 1998


address used without prejudice to rights
c/o, - The Circle, Court House
Georgetown,
military district fiction The "State Of Delaware"
military/martial fiction law district venue #19947

Dear Common Pleas Court Clerk,

Enclosed herewith, returned, rejected and refused for fraud are


legal documents, postmarked (date) which were delivered
fraudulently "without prejudice", opened by "Mistake", and they are
"Returned to Sender".

As I do not have "enough information or knowledge upon which to


base a responsive answer" - it is apparently not intended for me. As
I am not a trustee/fiduciary or transfer agent, and As I am not a
resident or resident agent, it is apparently not intended for me.

As I am not "Trading As" "d.b.a." or "a.k.a." DAVID S. DERIEMER, it is


apparently not intended for me.

The "Unliquidated Debt" (Res), (identified by


Instrument/Document) which is the "subject-matter" of this action,
is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

I do not understand these papers.

As it is illegal for me to knowingly accept or keep mail or papers


particularly legal papers, that are fraudulently delivered - the are
returned to you for fraud, fraudulent venue, and no valid Subject
matter as pertains to me a actual live flesh and blood American
man.

Any mail or other (legal) papers intended for my attention may be


directed as shown: David S.; DeRiemer, all rights reserved
address used without prejudice to rights
Care of, - 1624 Savannah Road
Lewes, Non-Domestic is in real
Delaware No zip Code

Sincerely yours,
David S. DeRiemer, real natural man
not Corporate Fiction Person subject
11. WHAT CONSTITUTES APPEARANCE

18. In General
An appearance may he expressly made by formal written or oral
declaration. or record entry,. to the. effect that -(he defendant
appears, or It may lie Implied from some act done with the
Intention of appearing and submitting to the court's jurisdiction.

Quoted In: Ky.-Smith v. Gadd, 280 S.W.2d 495, 497.

Research Note:
Appearance by or for one defendant or person involved us
constituting appearance for others is considered supra 1 13.

Library Reference Appearance 8(1). 9(l).

An appearance may either be express or it may arise by implication


from defendant's seeking, taking. or agreeing to some step or
proceeding in the cause beneficial to himself or detrimental to
plaintiff other than one contesting only the jurisdiction.92 or by
reason of some act proceedings recognizing the case as in court, as
discussed infra 19.

At early common law the only ways in which a defendant could


appear were by putting in special bail or by filing common bail as
noted infra 22, or by causing an appearance to be entered in the
clerk's office.

An appearance can usually be formally or expressly effected by


filing with the clerk a written* direction or praecipe to enter the
appearance of the party, by formal record entry, oral
announcement in open court."; acceptance of service by defendant
attorney or by filing in the cause a paper which either waives
service of process or which both waives service or process and
recites the entry of an appearance. or, as more fully discussed
infra 20. in accordance with a statute or court rule providing for
appearance by notice or general retainer or notice of appearance.
By the filing of his suit plaintiff enters an appearance which invokes
the attention of the
court.

Statutes or rules of court prescribing the method of appearance are


often regarded as exclusive to the extent that defendant must
follow the prescribed mode of appearing to secure a standing in
court and the right to be heard but it is sometimes held that they
are not exclusive even to this extent Furthermore, it is very
generally held that such statutes or rules do not precluded an
appearance, sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over
defendant's Person. by some other act or method of a substantial
character by which defendant intentionally invokes the court's
jurisdiction. There are a number of cases to be found which appear
to regard the statutory method of appearing as completely and
absolutely exclusive for all purposes; but even in (lie states where
these cases were decided there are other holdings which limit and
qualify them.

Unless there is a statute contemplating that the appearance be in


writing, the appearance need not be in the form of a signed.
writing, but may be by informal parole action. -An entry on the
docket by the clerk at the oral request or defendant's counsel is a
sufficient appearance in writing within the meaning of a statute; 20
but a rule of court providing that an appearance shall be entered
and marked on the margin of the record of the case by the attorney
in his own handwriting is not complied with by a typewritten mane
of the attorney indorsed on a conterbond filed in replevin.

Knowledge of the pending proceedings and an intention to appear


are ordinarily requisite to render an act or course of conduct an
appearance. An appearance is not to be inferred except as a result
of acts from which an intent to do so may properly be inferred The
assumption and conduct of the defense by a nominal for an actual
defendant does not constitute an appearance; but where an actual
wrongdoer voluntarily- appears and answers in the name of another
who has been sued for the former's wrong by mistake, the
wrongdoer thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court
and may be substituted as defendant A party may not appear
conditionally.

An appearance induced by fraud has no efficacy

19. Acts or Proceedings Recognizing Case as in Court

Any act the defendant which recognizes tile can* as let court
constitutes a general appearance. but. If an act does not do this or
seek to Invoke affirmative action from t he court. It Is not an
appearance.
Quoted In: Ark.-Sinclair Refining Co. v. Bounds,
127 S.W.2d 629 032. 198 Ark. 149.

Library References

Appearance 8(1). 9(1)

Broadly stated, any action on the part of defendant, except to


object to the jurisdiction over his person which recognizes the case
as in court will constitute a general appearance.
Understanding. In the law of contracts, an agreement. An implied
agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement.
whether written or oral. An Informal agreement, or a concurrence as to
its terms. A valid contract engagement of a somewhat informal
character. This is a loose and ambiguous term. unless it be accompanied
by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds
of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound.
See Agreement; Contract.

Undertake. To take on oneself to engage in: to enter upon; to take in


hand; set about: attempt: as, to under-take a task or a journey and,
specifically, to take upon oneself. solemnly or expressly. To lay oneself
under obligation or to enter into stipulation: to perform or to execute: to
covenant; to contract. Hence to guarantee tee; he surety for; promise to
accept or take over Is a charge, to accept responsibility for the care of. To
engage to look after or attend to, as to undertake a patient or guest. To
endeavor to perform or try; to promise, engage, agree, or assume an
obligation.

Undertaking. A promise, engagement, or stipulation. An En ement


by one of the parties to a contract to the other as distinguished from the
mutual engagement of the parties to each other. It does not necessarily
imply a consideration. In a somewhat special sense, a promise given in
the course of legal proceedings by a party or his counsel. generally as a
condition to obtaining some concession from the court or the opposite
party. A promise or security in any form. See Stipulation.

Undertook. Agreed; promised; assumed, This is the technical word to


be used in alleging the promise which forms the basis art action of
assumption.

Undisclosed Agency. Exists where agent deals with a third person


without notifying that person of the agency.

APPEARANCE. In practice. A coming Into court as party to a suit,


whether as plaintiff or defendant. Stephens v. Ringling, 102 S.C. 333, 86
S. E. 683, 685, The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Flint v. Comly, 95 Me. 251, 49 A.
1044. The voluntary submission to a court's jurisdiction. Pacilio v.
Scarpati, 300 N.Y.S. 473, 478, 165 Misc. 586; Braman v. Braman, 25S
N.Y.S. 181, 186, 236 App.Div. 164.

"Appearance" Is the act of appearing, coming. or being In sight,


becoming visible or clear to apprehension of the mind, of being known
as subject of observation or comprehension, or as a thing proved, of
being obvious or manifest. Hallack & Howard Lumber Co. v. Bagly, 100
Colo. 402, 68 P.2d 442, 443.

Appearance anciently meant an actual coming Into court,either person


or by attorney. Appearance may be made by the party In person or by
his agent Everett Ry. Light .A Co. v. U. S.. D.C. Wash., 2.16 F. 806. 808.
But in criminal cases the personal appearance or the accused In court is
often necessary.

An appearance may be either general or special; the former Is a simple


and unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the
court, the latter a submission to the jurisdiction for some specific
purpose only, not for All the purposes of the suit. Louisville At N. R. Co. v.
Industrial Board of Illinois. 282 111. 136, 118 N.E. 483, 483. A special
Appearance is for the purpose of testing the ?urn.-icncy (it service or the
Jurisdiction of the court,. a general Appearance Is made where the
defendant waives defects of service and submits to the jurisdiction State
Huller, 23 N.M. 306. 168 P. 528. 534. 1 A.L.R. 170.

An appearance may also be either Compulsory or voluntary fie former


where it is compelled by process served Co.% the I lie latter where It is
entered by Is own will or consent without the service of process 'In rough
process may so outstanding I Barb. Ch. Pr. 77. It is sold to be optional
when entered by a person who Intervenes In the action to protect his
own Interests. though not joined as a party; It occurs In Chancery
practice, especially In England; conditional, when Coupled with
conditions as to its becoming or being taken 03 a general Appearance:
gratis, when made by a party in the action, but before the service of nil
y process or legal notice to appear: do asse, asse, when en made
provisionally or to remain good only upon a future contingency: or when
designed to permit a party to a proceeding to refuse to sub his 0 the of
the court unless It F. it his person to the that he has forever waived that
right. Farmers Trust Co. V. Alexander 334 Pa. 434. 6 A.2d 262.
265: subsequent, when made toy a defendant after An appearance has
already been entered for Ill Jl, by the plaintiff Corporal, when the person
Is physically present in court

An answer constitutes an "appearance" Weiser Richter 2-17 Mich. 52,


225 N.W. 542, 343. A party who answers, consents to a continuance,
goes to trial. takes an appeal, or does any other substantial act In a
cause. Although he has not been served with summons. Is deemed to
have entered his -appearance- unless he objects and preserves his
protests to the jurisdiction of his person. Robinson v. Bossinger, 295 Ark.
445. 112 S.W.2d 637 640. Acts of an attorney In prosecuting an action
on behalf of his client constitute an -appearance.Pacillo v. Scarpati, 300
N.Y.S. 473. 165 Wisc. 586.

CONSENT.A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the


proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Twin v.
Pure Oil Co., C.Minn.. 26 F.Supp. Agreement; the act or result of coming
into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 0 t. 134, 24 P. 858 860.

Consent is an act of reason. accompanied with deliberation, the mind


weighing as In a balance the good or evil on each side. I Story. Eq.Jur.
222; Lervick v. White Top Cabs. La. App. 10 So.2d 67, 73. It means
voluntary agreement by a person In the possession and exercise of
sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice to do something
proposed by another. People v. Kanglesser.44 Cal.App. 345 186 P. 398.
389. It supposes a physical power to act. a moral power of acting, mind
a serious. determined, and free use of these powers. Fonblanque. Eq. b.
1. c. 2. a. 1: New Jersey Mfrs' Casualty Ins. Co. 148 A. 790, 791. 106
N.J.L. 238. Consent Is Implied In every agreement It is an act unclouded
by fraud, duress, or sometimes, even a mistake Heine v. Wright.76 338
244 P. 955

There Is a difference between consenting and submit Every consent


Involves a submission: but a mere submission does not necessarily
Involve consent. 9 Car. & P. 722 "Consent" Is an active acquiescence as
distinguished from "assent." meaning a silent acquiescence. People v.
Lowe. 205 N.Y.S. 77, 73, 209 APP.Div, 496.

"Consent" means an active circumstance of concurrence: -assent" Is a


passive act of concurrence before another does the act charged,
Perryman v. State. 63 Gn App. 919. 12 S.E.2d 383. 390 But the two
terms may be used Interchangeably. Bartlett v. Sundin, 109 N.Y.S. 391,
393. 182 App.Dlv. 117.

"Consent" is sometimes synonymous merely with "waiver." Dahiquist v.


Denver & R. 0. R. Co.. 52 Utah. 438, 174 P. 933. 8-1-1. See. also. See
Gmiller v. Day. C.C.A.Ill.. 249 F. 177. ],'A: Toledo Fence & Post Co. v.
Lyons. C.C.A-0hlo. 290 F. 637 640.

As used In the law of rape "consent'* means consent of the will, and
submission under the Influence of fear or ter, for cannot amount to real
consent. Hallmark v. State. 722 212 P. 322 328. There must be an
exercise of Intelligence based on knowledge or Its significance and moral
quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent. State
v. Schwab. 109 Ohipp St. 532. 143 N. E. 29. 31 And If woman resists In
the point where resistance would be unless or until her resistance to
over force or violence. submission thereafter Is not "consent fit". People
v. Mclivain 130 P 2d 131 135 55 Cal. App.2d 322

Implied Consent. That manifested by signs. actions, or facts, or by


action or silence, which raise false it presumption that the consent has
been given. Avery v. State. 12 Ga.App. 562. 77 S.E. 892. See State v.
Horton. 247 Mo. 657, 153 S.W. 1051, 1053; White v. WhIte, 84 N.J.Eq.
512. 95 A. 197. 199.

ACCEPT. To receive with approval or satisfaction to receive with intent to retain. See
Morris v. State, 102 Ark. 513, 145 S.W. 2 1-1. Also, In the capacity of drawee of a bill, to
recognize the draft, and engage to pay It when due. It Is not equivalent to "acquiesce."
Applett v. Empire Inv 4"), 99 Or, 533, 197 11. 461, Admit and agrees Ito, accede Ito or
consent lit; receive with approval; adopt ; agree to to. Rocha v. Hulen, 6 Cal.App.2d 2-15.
44 P.2d .178, 482, 483. Street committee's and city engineer's reports. City of Morehead v.
Blair, 243 Ky. 84, 47 S.W.2d 741, 742. Means something more than to receive, meaning to
adopt, to agree to carry out provisions. Assignee of lease, Pickier v. Mershon. 212 Iowa.
447. 236 N.W. 382, 385: Central State Bank v. Herrick, 214 Iowa 379, 240 N.W. 242, 246.
Renewal health and accident policy premiums, Prescott v. Mutual Ben. Health and
Accident Ass'n, Fla., 193 So. 311, 314, 119 A.L.R. 525.

ACCEPTANCE. The taking and receiving of anything in good part, and


as it were a tacit agreement to a preceding act, which might have been
defeated or avoided if such acceptance had not been made. Brooke, Abr.
The act of a person to whom a thing Is offered or tendered by another,
whereby he receives the thing with the intention of retaining it, such
intention being evidenced by a sufficient act. eEtna Inv. Corporation v.
Chandler Landscape & Floral Co., 227 Mo.App 17, 50 S.W.2d 195, 197.

The exercise of power conferred by an offer by performance of some act.


In re Larney's Estate, 266 N.Y.S. 564, 143 Misc. 871

Bills of Exchange

An engagement to pay the bill in money when due. 4 East 72; Hunt v.
Security State Bank, 91 Or. 362, 179 P. 248, 251.

The act by which the person on whom a bill of exchange Is drawn (called the "drawee") assents
to the request of the drawer to pay it, or. In other words. engages or makes himself liable. to pay
It when due. Bell-Wayland Co. v Bank of Sugden. 95 Oki. 67, 218 P, 705. It may be by parol or In
writing, and either general or special. absolute or conditional: and It may be Impliedly as well as
expressly given. 3 Kent. Comm. 93, 85; Story. Bills. 11 238, 251 Telegram directing drawer to
draw draft. 140 ffer v. Eastland Nat. Bank, Tex.Clv.App.. 169 S.W.2d M. 278. Certification at
request of the payee or holder. Welch v. Bank of Manhattan Co.. 35 N.Y.S.2d SN. 895, 264
App.Div, 906 But the usual and regular mode of acceptance Is by the drawee's writing across the
face of the bill the word "accepted." and subscribing his name; after which he is termed
the acceptor.

UNDERSTAND. To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as,


to understand the nature and effect of an act. Western Indemnity Co. v.
MacKcchnic, Tex.Civ.App., 21-1 S.W. 456,460; International-Great
Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. CIv.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a
full till and clear knowledge of; to comprehend. Fox v. Schaefrer, 131
Conn. 439, 41 A.2d 46, 49.

Thus, to Invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not
understand the nature of the act. the grantor
must be Incapable of comprehending that the effect of the act would
divest him of the title to the land set forth In the deed. Miller v. Folsom, 49
Okl. 74, 149 P. 1 185. 1188. As used in connection with the execution of wills and
other Instruments, the term Includes the realization of the practical
effects and consequences of the proposed act. Tillman V. Ogren. 99 Misc.
539. 166 N.Y.& 39, 40.

UNDERSTANDING. In the law of contracts. An agreement. Southern Ry.


Co. v. Powell, 124 Va. 65, 97 S.E. 357, 358. An implied agreement
resulting from the express terms of another agreement, whether written
or oral. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., D.C.Mo.. 234 F. 127,
148. An informal agreement, or a concurrence as to Its terms. Barkow v.
Sanger, 47 Wis. 507, 3 N.W. 16.

A valid contract engagement of a somewhat Informal character. Winslow


v. Lumber Co., 32 Minn. 23S, 20 N.W. 145. This In a loose and ambiguous
term, unless It be accompanied by some expression to show that it
constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something
respecting which they intended to be bound. Camp v. War. ing, 25 Conn.
529.

'The term may also import simply a wish or hope, as in a will bequeathing
property to another with the -understandIngthat at the legatee's death,
all property derived under the will should be riven to Vie
testatrtx's sister. Vincent v. Rix. 127 Misc. 639, 217 N.Y.S. 393, 399.

UNDERSTOOD The phrase "it Is understood,"when employed as a word


of contract In a written
agreement. has the same force as the words "it Is agreed.- Phoenix Iron
& Steel Co. v. Wilkoff
Co., C.C.A.Ohlo, 25:1 F. 165, 167; Mertz v. Fleming, 185 Wis. 58, 200 N.W.
655, 656.

UNDERTAKE To take on oneself; to engage In: (0 enter upon; to take III


hand; set about; fittempt; as, to undertake a task; a Journey; and,
specifically, to take upon oneself solemnly or expressly; to lay oneself
under obligation or to enter into stipulation-, to perform or to execute; to
covenant; contract; hence to guarantee be surety for; promise; to accept
or take over as a charge; to accept responsibility for the care of; to
engage to look after or attend to; as to undertake a patient or guest
Lowe v. Poole, 235 Ala. 441, 179 So. 536, !,10. To endeavor to perform,
try, to promise, engage or agree, assume an obligation. Torelie v.
Templeman, 94 Mont. 149, 21 P.2d 60.

UNDERTAKING. A promise, engagement, or stipulation. Ali engagement


by one of the parties to a contract to the other, as distinguished from
t1he mutual engagement of the parties to each other. 5 East 17; 4 B. &
Aid. 595, followed In Alexander v. State, 28 Tex.App. 186, 3.2 S.W. 595. It
does not necessarily Imply a consideration. Thompson v. Blanchard, 3
N.Y. 335.

In a somewhat special sense, a promise given In the course of legal


proceedings by a party or his counsel, generally as a condition to
obtaining some concession from the court or the opposite party. Sweet.

A promise or security In any form. Code, Iowa, 1 43, pax. 20.

undertaking such as one by a county clerk or other officer under


An official
statutes, unlike an official bond. Is not required I ed to be signed by the
principal Fleisdiner v. Florcy, 111 Or. 35. =4 P. 833, 832.
Statement to make before a "fiction court"

"Under"- 1.) in or to a position below or beneath something. 3.) in


or into a condition of subjection, subordination, or
unconsciousness.

"Standing" - n. lb: a position from which one may assert or enforce


legal rights and duties.

"Understanding" - n. 3c: a mutual agreement not formally entered


into but in some degree binding on each side. "Understanding" -
adj. 1: fully apprehended.

"Apprehend" - 1a: to take hold of. 1b: arrest, seize. 3: to grasp with
the understanding; be fully aware of; understand, grasp.

"Fiction" - 1a: something invented by the imagination or feigned.

"Feign"-la: to represent by a false appearance of. Pretense,


dissemble.

"Dissemble" 1: to hide under false appearance. 2: to put under the


appearance of: simulate - vi: to put on a false appearance, conceal
facts, intentions, of feelings under some pretense.

"Statement - before a fictitious court", "I Do Not understand as to


feign or dissemble, or to be so understood as to be fully
apprehended, for to do so would be under false pretense,
therefore, I Do Not have understanding"

SECOND STATEMENT (follow-up) if necessary. "I Do NOT understand,


for I may be beneath a position from which YOU may
assert your legal rights, and may create an agreement not formally
entered into, but in some degree binding, and this may cause me to
be falsely understood, fully apprehended, and dissembled,
therefore, I Do NOT have understanding"

See "Fiction of Law"

FICTION OF LAW
Fiction of law. An assumption or supposition of law that something
which Is or may be false Is true, or that a state of facts exists which
has never really taken place. An assumption. for purposes of
justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. A rule of law
which assumes as true. and will not allow to
be disproved something which is false, but not impossible. Ryan v.
Motor Credit Co.. 30 N.I.Eq. 531. 23 A 2d 607, 621

In their "Fiction" Court Their "discretion" is YOU


LOSE - regardless how much "Proof" or evidence of how "Right" you
are.
(Note: Serve this NOTICE on "Agencies", extortionists, Captors,
Pirates; Ransomers, "Jailers", or "police" - not on Court)

"NOTICE OF NON APPEARANCE" based upon NO UNDERSTANDING and


NO CONSENT based upon

"I did NOT "understand", - if and when I did sign anything, and you have to prove I
did understand". (See Garrett v. Moore McCormack Co.)

"An Appearance induced by Fraud (legal coercion, physical duress, or fictitious


party) has no efficacy" (Stultz v. Stultz, 94A.2d 527, 24 N.J.Super, 354, 6 C.J.S.
18)

per Court Rule 12 (b) (1) "MOTION TO DISMISS due to lack of jurisdiction. (Do
NOT touch the issue)

"Holding or detaining beyond 48 hours without "charging" or "booking" is unlawful"


per COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs. McLAUGHLIN 111 S.Ct 1661 (1991)

1. U.S. vs. IKE KOZMINSKY et al 487 US 931, 934 (no


involuntary servitude)

2. GARRETT vs. MOORE-McCORKACK Co. 317 U.S. 238 (no full


understanding = no meeting of minds = no intent)

3. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs. McLAUGHLIN 111 S.Ct 1661 (1991) (No


incarceration beyond 48 hours without "charging" or "booking")

4. MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 "You have the right to remain silent (and
NOT make "Appearance" by a statement) or the court will appoint a Lawyer for
you, who will make an "Appearance" for you and grant the Court "Jurisdiction" for
you.

Note: We must file with Court: 1. "OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION" (failure to


(object] reserve your rights,- waives your rights).

2. "DEMAND TO DISMISS" due to lack of jurisdiction (no consent to use "Code")


and denial of "Due Process" therefor, due to no "consent". (per Court Rule 12 (b)
(1) MOTION TO DISMISS -no jurisdiction)

signed,

Dated: August 25, 1998

Accused/Detainee
real live flesh and blood Natural Man
Private Party Foreign State

Non "corporate fiction person subject"


Editor
Wall Street Journal
1155 Ave. of the America's FL 6
New York, N.Y. 10036

Dear Sir,
c/o 7055 Mtn Rd.
Oxford North Carolina

I read your Review and Outlook article in the Nov. 21. 1997
Wall Street Journal. I Find it very hard to believe you don't
know much about the IMF. We do and expert witness
testimony was given in a case in Nevada in 1995 Here is a
short history and you can take it from there. The real United
States Treasury was created in 1841 because the private
banks were raping the states and United States
governments. The Whigs came into power and repealed the
Act. When they lost power in 1845 the governments re-
instituted the real bank of the United States and it dealt in
SPECIE as required by their constitution. Now this caused
much concern for the private banks using inflation paper
(scrip if you will). So it took until 1913 for the private banks,
making out of thin air federal reserve notes, to become
powerful enough in the corrupt circles of government to
create the Federal Reserve Act. This private concern
operated parallel with the real bank. Then in the year 1921,
by the Act of 1920, the Congress abolished the United
States Independent Treasury and turned all money and
banking over to this private concern as Fiscal agents only.
for the government. The Act was worded in such a way that
no government representative could sit on the board after
(fie first term. Now in the Federal Reserve Act of 1916 the
Feds created the International Monetary Fund. Well, it really
wasn't called that at the time but it evolved into its present
day status.

In the Bretton Woods Agreement Act the Secretary of the


United States Treasury, now defunct due to the Act of 1920,
was installed as the IMF head. The phrase United States was
dropped. This can he found in 00 Statutes at Large
1401 cf. seq. You see., Mr. Editor, every Secretary of the
Treasury since then is not the Secretary of' the Treasury of'
the United States.

He is the Secretary of the Treasury alright, but he is the


Secretary of the Treasury of the FED.RFS./IMF. He is not paid
by the United States government as stated in 60 Stat 1401
et seq. Under international law fie cannot be paid. He owes
no allegiance to the U.S. being a member of such
organization as stated in law and in the case of Mendero v
the World bank case. in fact we have a letter that states that
the Secretary of the Treasury has no SUBSCRIBED oath of
office as required under Title 5 USC 333 1. You see the U.S.
Treasury exists in name only.

Now we all know the lender controls the debtor. Here is what
happened. Between the years 1921 and 1929, the Feds took
all the people's money and heavily invested it in Europe.
When people got wind of this they started pulling their
money out of the banks in specie. The Feds, having
exhausted its real money supply, immediately asked
President Hoover to institute the Trading With the Enemy Act
of 1917 with a rewritten part making the American people
the " enemy" so they would not cause the collapse that did
occur. But it was a controlled collapse. We know who the
players are so don't fret and no you are smart enough
to figure it out being so close to Wall street. Well In the
Hoover Papers he states it is unconstitutional and there is no
need for this legislation. In the Hoover Papers there exists
the exact communication from the Fed. Res. Board with
the legislative words already drawn up. We all know what
happened next'. President Roosevelt to protect his buddy
banker (Rockefeller) who would lose so much; implemented on
March 401. 1933. Executive Order 2039 and on March 5th instituted it
under the Emergency Powers part of the Constitution. Then on March 9.
1933 he called Congress together and forced Congress under the Emergency
Powers Act to pass 48 Stat 1, which closed (]own the banks so they could be
licensed to trade with the "enemy'. That is us, the American People Mr.
Editor. We are in a state of war with the private banking cartel as the
creditor and we are the debtors after they stole all the people's money in
those years I mentioned. Just Read P.L. 93-549 to see what I mean. You
might think that all this was repealed but it wasn't. On repeal they left one
small key to keep it going. That key is section 5 (b) of the trading With the
Enemy Act. Today you will find it in 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). So the bottom
line is that the private IMF that you think is so mysterious really is not.
Secretive they have to be because they float out of thin air funny little
pieces of paper that you so wrongly call money. It is the bane of all mankind
through out history because it steals the wealth (labor) of people in
exchange for military scrip. Yes, I said military scrip because we. as the
enemy. are living in a conquested country run by the creditors, the IMF
AKA the Federal Reserve AKA private men in a banking cartel that control
your life and mine. That is why the real Treasurer of the United States is
Mary Ellen Withrow and her signature appears on all the things called
federal reserve notes. Now to make it a commercial note, international bills
of credit. you have to have a second party signature on it and that is Robert
Rubin the secretary of the FED/IMF. Most people do not wonder why the
Treasurer of the United States would have her Secretary sign off on the
same thing called a "note" to give it credit- ability. Did you ever see the
phrase The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States on the note'? Of
course no(. It is an impossibility. You see in commercial law that would be
redundant, and, as a true "note" it lacks the elements found in the U.C.C.,
wouldn't you say'? How can your secretary's signature on something that
you signed give it any more weight'? No. in the merchant-law that we
operate, two separate signatures are required from separate parties on a
"note. " Since the PRIVATE Feds were made agents and they created the
IMF guess who controls this country" That's right not the people at all, for
we are the "enemy. " Since the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 put us
under military control by a de facto Congress, who by the way is still a de
facto Congress, which vetoed President Johnson's veto of Lincoln's decree
making us the enemy. See 12 Stat 319, which lies now in War at Title 50
Sections 212. 213, and 215. Plus 28 USC 2461 to 2465 and then Roosevelt's
decree making us the "enemy" of the private banking cartel, do you now
understand why they have to operate in secrete'? It is a creation that
Congress allows since it is bankrupt and has been since the civil war. Why
do you think there his been so many Reorganizations under the
Bankruptcy'? Oh, I could go into a brief that would take a thousand pages
but that is not necessary as it is all recorded in the Federal case of The
People of the State of Nevada EX Rel. citizen Robert Kahre v. The
International Monetary Fund, (The Fund). The International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (The Bank), as Principal, CV-S-93-
1054 (Clark County case # A323777). That is why the private collection
agency of the Feds exist to sop up the purchasing power of their funny
monopoly money, otherwise the faith the people have in FRAUD (Federal
Reserve Accounting Unit Devices) will cause every man and woman to
probably hang every banker and politician from what ever they could
find. Of course the United States has over used their Special Drawing
Rights from the IMF so it too is bankrupt to even that which compounds
it. And the slaves of Amerika will happily agree to have more worthless
pieces of paper given to them so they can 'discharge (they never have
payed) their debts under limited liability as a conquered people.

Copyright 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 No Tax Academy


Last modified: 05/06/2013 12:49 PM

eMail: notaxman@dmv.com
Toll free: 1- 877-544-4718 (24hrs.)

Pay- "Lecture Line" 1-900-336-6100 ($2.99/minute)

People's Rights "Established since 1972."

Money back guarantee providing that student follows through to completion with Course
process as taught !

We do not give or sell legal advice. For that one must retain a lawyer