Supreme Court decisions..THE Supreme Law of the Land in America...YOUR keys to sovereignty!

There are about 78 (depending on how you count them), and these are... REFERENCES...  #?. “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; 38 USC § 3002 - Definitions (verified source:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002) UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID RULINGS / JURISDICTION CHALLENGES: #?. "University Lakes Justice Court" brings the result of: "JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA", located at "201 E CHICAGO ST, CHANDLER, AZ 85225", on Dun and Bradstreets registry. (verified source:  https://mycredit.dnb.com/search/

busName=University+Lakes+Justice+Court&city=&state=Arizona&...) The above link seems to indicate that the "University Lakes Justice Court" is a commercial business and not a legal court under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, hence being registered as a business means it cannot have lawful jurisdiction or authority over any Humans whatsoever.    #?. 2. ... II, A,  "The proposition that the judgment of a court lacking jurisdiction is void traces back to the English Year Books, see Bowser v. Collins, Y. B. Mich. 22 Edw. IV, f. 30, pl. 11, 145 Eng. Rep. 97 (Ex. Ch. 1482), and was made settled law by Lord Coke in Case of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke Rep. 68b, 77a, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027, 1041 (K. B. 1612). Traditionally that proposition was embodied in the phrase coram non judice, [495 U.S. 604, 609]   "before a person not a judge" - meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment. American courts invalidated, or denied recognition to, judgments that violated this common-law principle long before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. See, e. g., Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40 (1814); Picquet v. Swan, 19 F. Cas. 609 (No. 11,134) (CC Mass. 1828); Dunn v. Dunn, 4 Paige 425 (N. Y. Ch. 1834); Evans v. Instine, 7 Ohio 273 (1835); Steel v. Smith, 7 Watts & Serg. 447 (Pa. 1844); Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336, 350 (1850). In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 (1878), we announced that the judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.  " Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin (verified source:  caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=495&invol=604) Supreme Court of the United States, 1990. 495 U.S. 604, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631.  (verified source:  lawweb.pace.edu/dld/CivPro1_Materials/Burnham_Case.pdf)   #?. "...the fact that subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after trial...". Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 1161 (U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania., April 14, 1980). (verified sources:  www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/10/10043101.pdf  -&-  www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=5&xmldoc=19801655494FSupp116...)     #?.  "It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution."  Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) - (verified source:  https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/19/19.US.264.html)   #?.  U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County in the State of Tennessee, 118 U.S. 425 (1886): "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."  (verified source:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=1...)   #?. "[t]he general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose.   Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed and never existed; that is, it is void ab initio." (LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION v. FISCHER, Supreme Court of Kentucky, Nos. 2012–SC–000091–TG, 2012–SC–000092–TG. April 26, 2012 -;  verified source:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1599603.html)   #?.  "On the other hand, judicial action without jurisdiction is void; where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than dismiss the case. Garcia, 596 S.W.2d at 528." (Kevin Lane FONTENOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 2-95-228-CR., 932 S.W.2d 185, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. August 16, 1996.)    (verified source:  http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19961117932SW2d185_1109...)   #?. "A judgment entered by a court that does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter is void."  Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987). [verified source:  http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/0792964.txt] #?. "A judgment is void if it has been entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.  Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)" COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA;  Present:     Judges Clements, McClanahan and Retired Judge Strickland*;  Argued by teleconference;  WILLIS HOWARD WINFREE v. LINDA PUGH WINFREE;  MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN;  FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG, AUGUST 30, 2005;  Record No. 2391-04-3;  J. Leyburn Mosby, Jr., Judge.  Robert C. Wood, III (Edmunds & Williams, on briefs), for appellant.  Arelia S. Langhorne for appellee. (verified source: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2391043.txt)   #?. Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 536-37, 25 S.E.2d 352, 358-59 (1943) (citation omitted).  Except at the election of an innocent party, see e.g., Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 387 (1970), "a voidable order may only be set aside by the trial court upon a timely motion to reconsider, a bill of review, an independent action brought pursuant to Code 8.01-428(D), or by an appellate court after a timely appeal, none of which occurred in this case."  "If it is void ab initio, it can be "impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner." "  Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 705, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925).   [verified source:  http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2391043.txt].   #?. "The omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in a legal process prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction, …" Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8thed., pg. 2287. This reference was used in this court case: superior court of Alabama, Jefferson county, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE UNDER POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATES AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2005 MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1 INC. TRUST 2005-HE6 Plaintiff, Vs. DONALD JOE BARBER, BRENDA G. BARBER Defendant. DONALD JOE BARBER, BRENDA G. BARBER Third Party Plaintiff, Vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE UNDER POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATES AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2005 MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1 INC. TRUST 2005-HE6 Third Party Defendants. [verified source:  http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/barber/2-A-MEMORANDUM%20OF%20LAW.htm]. ON NAMES, STRAWMAN, FICTICIOUS, CORPORATE, LEGAL FICTIONS, ETC.:    #?. STRAWMAN names:  "A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre." (source: Gregg's Manual of English)  #?.  Fictitious Name: "A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead." ( source:  Black's Law Dictionary )   #?A. Nom de guerre: War name. A name assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.  (source:  )   #?B. nom: Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name. (source:  Oxford Dictionary)   #?C. Guerre: War, and as a verb, to wage war.  (source:  )   #?. Legal names and capitalization: ...Notice how all examples are Proper Nouns and properly capitalized via Capitis Diminutio Media...    "Proper names     3.2.  Proper names are capitalized.            Rome                  John Macadam             Italy "    "Trade names and trademarks     3.25.     Trade names, variety names, and names of market grades and 

        brands are capitalized. ...
        Choice lamb (market grade)              Xerox  (the company)
        Red Radiance rose (variety)         but photocopy (the process) "
   "Personification
   3.32.     A vivid personification is capitalized.
          The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York;
      but I spoke with the chair yesterday.
          For Nature wields her scepter mercilessly.
          All are architects of Fate,
                Working in these walls of Time."
   "National governmental units:
   U.S. Congress: 110th Congress; the Congress; Congress; the Senate;
       the House; Committee of the Whole, the Committee; but committee
       (all other con  gressional committees) ...
   Treasury of the United States: ...
   U.S. Army: the Army; All-Volunteer Army; ...
   U.S. Navy: the Navy; the Marine Corps; Navy (Naval) Establishment;
       Navy officer; but naval shipyard; naval officer; naval station
   U.S. Air Force: the Air Force
   U.S. Coast Guard: the Coast Guard
   "International organizations:
   United Nations: the Council; the Assembly; the Secretariat
   Permanent Court of Arbitration: the Court; the Tribunal (only in the
       proceedings of a specific arbitration tribunal)
   Hague Peace Conference of 1907: the Hague Conference; the Peace
       Conference; the Conference"
 (source:  U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual Chapter 3 - Capitalization Rules; www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/html/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-200...)
  #?. "...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state.  The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.  He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.  His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. (1905/6: Hale v.  Henkel, 201 U.S.  43.;  Defined the distinction between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 5th Amendment protections within the U.S.  Constitution.)  [verified source:   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=2...].
DEFINITIONS:
  #?.  corporation:  An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular oltice, but ordinarily consisting of an association of numerous individuals, who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded In law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of continuous succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either in perpetuity or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single individual in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and authorities conferred upon such bodies by law. See Case of Sutton’s Hospital, 10 Coke. 32; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636, 657. 4 L. Ed. 629; U. S. v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160, 11 Sup. Ct. 57. 34 L. Ed. 640; Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., 86 Fed. 585, 30 C. C. A. 293; Porter v. Railroad Co., 76 111. 573; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468, 31 S. W. 797. 33 L. R. A. 576; Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. New York, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 2S3; State BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.) (verified source:  http://thelawdictionary.org/corporation/)
  #?. A corporation is not a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (D. D. B. Realty Corp. v. Merril, 232 F.Supp. 629, 637).  
 #?.  "A bill of attainder is defined by the Supreme Court as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an easily ascertainable group without a judicial trial." (3-31-1966, The Supreme Court's Bill of Attainder Doctrine: A Need for Clarification, by Charles H. Wilson Jr.) (verified source:  http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=295...)
  #?. Definition of Treason: from Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.  The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason..."
  #?. insurrection:  A rebellion, or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government. See INSURGENT .Insurrection shall consist in any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the state, with intent to the denial thereof, when the same is manifested, or intended to be manifested, by acts of violence. Code Ga. 1882... (verified source:  http://thelawdictionary.org/insurrection/
  #?.  vi·o·lence:  (v-lns), n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
(verified source:  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/violence)
  #?. actual violence:  An assault with actual violence is an assault with physical force put in action, exerted upon the person assailed. The term violence is synonymous with physical force, and the two are used interchangeably in relation to assaults. State v. Wells. 31 Conn. 210.  (verified source:  http://thelawdictionary.org/actual-violence/)
  #?. harm: Injury, Loss, or Detriment...  harm:  "Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury. Harm is physical or mental damage, an act or instance of injury, or a material and tangible detriment or loss to a person." (verified source:  http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/threat-of-harm/)
  #?. de·tain:  (d-tn)
tr.v. de·tained, de·tain·ing, de·tains
1. To keep from proceeding; delay or retard.
2. To keep in custody or temporary confinement: The police detained several suspects for questioning. The disruptive students were detained after school until their parents had been notified.
3. Obsolete To retain or withhold (payment or property, for example). (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/detain)
  #?.  arrest:  A situation in which the police detain a person in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear she is not free to leave.
A person can be “under arrest” even though the police have not announced it; nor are handcuffs or physical restraint necessary.
Questioning an arrested person about her involvement in or knowledge of a crime must be preceded by the Miranda warnings if the police intend to use the answers against the person in a criminal case.
If the arrested person chooses to remain silent, the questioning must stop. (http://legaldefinitions.co/arrest.html)
#?. prima facie:  Lat. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure ; presumably. A litigating party is said to have a  cie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley & Whitley. And see State v. Hardelein, 109 Mo. 579, 70 S. W. 130; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 210, 9 N. W. 698. (verified source:  http://thelawdictionary.org/prima-facie/)
  #?. jurisdiction:  The power aud authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm.  (verified source:  thelawdictionary.org/jurisdiction/)
  #?. Equity jurisdiction: ...a person seeking equitable relief brings the same complaint as in a law action and simply demands equitable relief instead of (or in addition to) money damages.
 "Equity jurisdiction", in its ordinary acceptation, as distinguished on the one sie from the general power to decide matters at all, and on the other from the jurisdiction "at law" or "common-law jurisdiction", is the power to hear certain kinds of classes of cicil causes according to the principles of the method and procedure adopted by the court of chancery, and to decide them in accordance with the doctrines and rules of equity jurisprudence, which decision may involve either the determination of the equitable rights, estates, and interests of the parties to such causes, or the granting of equitable remedies. ...
In order that a cause may come within the scope of the equity jurisdiction, one of two alternatives is essential; either the primary right, estate, or interest to be maintained, or the violation of which furnishes the cause of action, must be equitable rather than legal; or the remedy granted must be in its nature purely equitable, or if it be a remedy which may also be given by a court of law, it must be one which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be made complete and adequate through the equitable modes of procedure. Norback v. Board of Directors of Church Extension Soc., 84, Utah 506, 37 P.2d 339. (verified source:  http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/1979_Black_5/...)
 #?. Countervailing equity: A contrary and balancing equity; an equity or right opposed to that which is sought to be enforced or recognized, and which ought not to be sacrificed or subordinated to the latter, because it is of equal strength and justice, and equally deserving of consideration. (verified source:  http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/1979_Black_5/...)
  #?. Equity: Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law.  (verified source:  http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/1979_Black_5/...)
  #?. The term "equity" denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men... Gilles v. Dept. of Human Resources Development (verified source:  http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/1979_Black_5/...)
  #?. Common Law: As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs...particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. (verified source:  http://thelawdictionary.org/common-law/)
  #?.  income:  "... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."  - [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)]  (source:  http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html)
  #?."There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)] - (source:  http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html)
#?.Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)]  (verified source:  http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html)
  #?.  "Gross income tax held unconstitutional" "State cannot tax occupation for state revenue purposes." "...occupations of common right held not subject to taxation." "Income tax held invalid as occupation tax."  Supreme Court of Arkansas, Simms, State Comptroller, Vs. Ahrens Et Al., No. 114, Jan. 19, (1925), [Cite as: 271 S.W. 720] (verified source:  famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/authorities/Circuit/SimsV.Ahrens271SW720s.pdf)
 #?. Law: That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.
In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases "to wage one's law", "to lose one's law".
The term is also used in opposition to "fact". Thus, questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to resolve questions of fact.
...science or system of principles or rules of human conduct; Secretary of the Treasury regulations... "A concurrent or joint resolution of the legislature is not "a law""   Koenig v. Flynn, 258 NY, "An unconstitutional statute is not a "law".  2) n. a statute, ordinance, or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law" which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). The highest law in the United States is the U.S. Constitution. No state or federal law may contradict any provision in the Constitution.   (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law)
 #?. statute: n. a Federal or state written law enacted by the Congress or state legislature, respectively. Local statutes or laws are usually called "ordinances." Regulations, rulings, opinions, executive orders and proclamations are not statutes. (verified source:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute)
#?. Fraud: consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to withintent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional. Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co.,67 N. Y. 292; Alexander v. Church, 53 Conn. 501, 4 Atl. 103; Studer v. Bleistein. 115 N.Y. 31G, 22 X. E. 243, 7 L. R. A. 702; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122, 9 Sup. Ct. 447,32 L. Ed. 878; Fechheimer v. Baum (C. C.) 37 Fed. 167; U. S. v. Beach (D. C.) 71 Fed.160; Gardner v. Ileartt, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 232; Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Arnold, 108 Ga. 449, 34 S. E. 176.Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing on a material part ofthe contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain some unjustadvantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other. CivilCode La. art. 1S47.Fraud, In the sense of a court of equity, properly Includes all acts, omissions, andconcealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidencejustly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientiousadvantage is taken of another. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. (verified source:  http://thelawdictionary.org/fraud/)
  The Webster’s Dictionary states that Fraud means Deceit, Trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
(verified source:  http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm)
The Blacks Law Dictionary states pretty much what the Webster’s Dictionary does but adds about two pages full of information.  My favorite part is: "A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury." (verified source:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)
DRIVING IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE:
  #?. Here are many sources of court decisions on this subject...
http://www.policeworld.net/vb/showthread.php?17633-Why-do-we-have-d...
http://www.dismissticket.com/TheLaw.html
http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixJ.htm
http://csa.systekproof.com/?page_id=1502  (Confederate States of America, official website, Nature of Law explained)
  #?.  ' "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.' (verified source:  http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/travel_3.pdf)
   #?. "[a]lthough this Court has recognized that a statute may be enacted which prevents serious interference with normal usage of streets and parks, . . . we have consistently condemned licensing systems which vest in an administrative official discretion to grant or withhold a permit upon broad criteria unrelated to proper regulation of public places." U.S. Supreme Court, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) (verified source:  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/case.html)
#?.  "The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127." AND "The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General." Kent v. Dulles - 357 U.S. 116 (1958), U.S. Supreme Court,No. 481, Argued April 10, 1958, Decided June 16, 1958 (verified source:  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/case.html)
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE:
  #?.  "We need not enter into a discussion whether the practice of law is a "right" or "privilege." Regardless of how the State's grant of permission to engage in this occupation is characterized, it is sufficient to say that a person cannot be prevented from practicing except for valid reasons. Certainly the practice of law is not a matter of the State's grace. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 71 U. S. 379." (verified source:  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/case.html)
  #?.   "CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!
       III.The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!!  A.It is a "UNION DUES CARD". (source:  )
  #?.The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State... "Whether the practice of law is a "right" or a "privilege" need not here be determined; it is not a matter of the State's grace, and a person cannot be barred except for valid reasons. P. 353 U. S. 239, n 5." ... "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "  Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239  (verified source:  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/case.html)
  #?.  "The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful, or conducted in a manner injurious to the public, is a common right, which, under our Constitution as construed by all our former decisions, can neither be prohibited or hampered by laying a tax for state revenue on the occupation, employment, business, or profession."  (verified source:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/authorities/Circuit/SimsV.Ahrens2...)
PRO SE COMPLAINTS MUST BE AIDED BY COURT:
  #?. "the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam).  AND:   In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957))." ... "Platsky, however, premised his actions on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). AND:   "Bivens established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right." Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1471, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980). As the district court recognized, even in Bivens actions jurisdictional limitations permit a plaintiff to sue only the federal government officials responsible for violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights; a plaintiff cannot sue the agency for which the officials work. See Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120, 122-23 (2d Cir.1987). Cf. Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 618 n. 27 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981).   AND:   Instead of simply dismissing the complaints for naming federal agencies as the defendants, it would have been appropriate for the district judge to explain the correct form to the pro se plaintiff so that Platsky could have amended his pleadings accordingly." 953 F.2d 26;  21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 97;  Henry PLATSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.;  Henry PLATSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI; and Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defendant-Appellees.  Nos. 216, 217, Dockets 91-6109, 91-6113.  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.  Argued Oct. 3, 1991.  Decided Nov. 25, 1991.   (verified source:   http://openjurist.org/953/f2d/26/platsky-v-central-intelligence-age...).
  #?.  "[If] it is at all possible that the party against whom the dismissal is directed can correct the defect in the pleading or state a claim for relief, the court should dismiss with leave to amend." 907 F.2d 124 Arlan G. REYNOLDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Duane SHILLINGER, Defendant-Appellee.; No. 90-8002.; United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.;  June 28, 1990.  Also from that case: "See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir.1988) (pro se complaints held " 'to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers' ")"..."The district court abused its discretion by failing to give [the pro se plaintiff] 'a meaningful opportunity to remedy the obvious defects in his summary judgment materials.' "..."pro se complaint "can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief' ". (verified source:  http://openjurist.org/907/f2d/124/reynoldson-v-shillinger)
 #?. 88 F.3d 188, 34 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1617, Thomas Kevin McDOWELL, Appellant, v. DELAWARE STATE POLICE; John Campanella, Detective; Peachey, Trooper; Romanelli, Trooper; Simpson, Trooper.; No. 96-7058.; United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a), May 22, 1996. Decided July 5, 1996. Thomas K. McDowell, Oxford, Pennsylvania, Pro Se.;  Jeffrey M. Taschner, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellees.;  Before: BECKER, McKEE and GARTH, Circuit Judges.;  OPINION OF THE COURT, GARTH, Circuit Judge:
"We cannot affirm the dismissal unless we can "say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957))." [verified source: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/88/88.F3d.188.96-7058.htm].
  #?. 52 F.3d 338: Mark Stephen Merila, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Anthony Johnson, Individually and As a Lieutenant at Theutah State Prison; Dennis Gordon, Individually and As an Officer at the Utah State prison, Defendants-appellees, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. - 52 F.3d 338;  April 11, 1995.  Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.  "pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings" [verified source:  http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/52/338/572739/].
  #?. 953 F.2d 26, 21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 97;  Henry PLATSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.;  Henry PLATSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI; and Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defendant-Appellees.;  Nos. 216, 217, Dockets 91-6109, 91-6113.  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Oct. 3, 1991. Decided Nov. 25, 1991. Henry Platsky, pro se.;  Michelle T. Weiner, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Robert L. Begleiter, Deborah B. Zwany, Asst. U.S. Attys., of Counsel), Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant-appellants.;  Before CARDAMONE, PIERCE and WALKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:  " Instead of simply dismissing the complaints for naming federal agencies as the defendants, it would have been appropriate for the district judge to explain the correct form to the pro se plaintiff so that Platsky could have amended his pleadings accordingly." [verified source:  http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/953/953.F2d.26.91-6113.91-...].
#?. "The court below should have applied the rule of Ghadiali v. Delaware State Medical Society, D.C.Del., 48 F.Supp. 789, 790, and Allen v. Corsano, D.C.Del., 56 F.Supp. 169, 170, that where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities."
PICKING v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.;  151 F.2d 240 (1945);  PICKING et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al. No. 8663. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued February 6, 1945. Decided August 28, 1945. Rehearing Denied October 3, 1945. [verified source:  http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1945391151F2d240_1313.x...].
  #?.  U.S. Supreme Court;  SCHEUER v. RHODES, 416 U.S. 232 (1974), 416 U.S. 232;  SCHEUER, ADMINISTRATRIX v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.;  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 72-914. Argued December 4, 1973. Decided April 17, 1974. * MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court... "it is well established that, in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader. " [verified source:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&cou...].
  #?. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, JEAN G. MINTZ v. BELL ATLANTIC, INC., et al. CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-3546   "AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 1999, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)."  (Verifiied source: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0794p.pdf)
AND 2
  #?. 'We cannot affirm the dismissal unless we can "say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).'  (verified source:  http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/88/188/486890/) [Actual quote from this source:  88 F.3d 188: Thomas Kevin Mcdowell, Appellant, v. Delaware State Police; John Campanella, Detective;peachey, Trooper; Romanelli, Trooper; Simpson, Trooper; United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. - 88 F.3d 188; Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)May 22, 1996.Decided July 5, 1996; Thomas K. McDowell, Oxford, Pennsylvania, Pro Se.;  Jeffrey M. Taschner, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellees.;  Before: BECKER, McKEE and GARTH, Circuit Judges.;  GARTH, Circuit Judge]
AND 3
  #?.  'Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 355 U. S. 45-46 (1957)' (verified source:  U.S. Supreme Court;  Haines v. Kerner - 404 U.S. 519 (1972);  No. 70-5025, Argued December 6, 1971, Decided January 13, 1972;  supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/519/case.html)
AND 4
  #?.  'In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint, we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' (verified source:  U.S. Supreme Court, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), No. 7, Argued October 21, 1957, Decided November 18, 1957 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/355/41/case.html)
EXCERPTS FROM OUR NATIONS CONSTITUTION:
  #?. The Preamble States the Cardinal or Capital purpose for our Goverment in general: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
  #?. A)  1787 Constitution, Article III - The Judicial Branch;
  Section 1 - Judicial powers;  Jurisdictions: Equity, admiralty, maritime, and common law, as well as laws made in accordance with the United States Constitution...
  "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
  Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
  "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; [between a State and Citizens of another State]; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, [and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects]." (The sections in [brackets] were modified by the 11th Amendment.)
  "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." ... Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases, Ratified 12/15/1791, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
   #?. B)  Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths:  "...
   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;  ..."
OTHER REFERENCES:
  #?.  "One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance."  (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).   [Copied from: http://www.rvbeypublications.com/id109.html]
  #?. A) U.S. Supreme Court, Robert M. Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, No. 270. (Argued Nov. 18, 1969. Decided May 4, 1970. ): "Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."  (verified source:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&cou...)
  #?. B) “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
#?.  The Titles of Nobility Clause and Amendment:  Art.1,Sec.9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.";  Amendment text: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.".  [Note: "Esquire" is a title assigned to all members of the BAR.  (Esquire "...a title of respect previously accorded to men of higher social rank" Source: The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 25 see statutoril prescribed post-nominal titles of L.M. and N.O. in Schedule B. Form of Certificate.)  ("Esquire" is the most junior title. In the United States, the suffix Esq. most commonly designates individuals licensed to practice law, and may be used by both men and women. Source: Thompson, Kathryn. Tussle Over Titles, ABA Journal, January 2006.) ]. (sources:  http://www.libertyforlife.com/law/13th/missing_13th_images.htmhttp://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/13thamend-%20images.htm;   http://www.truthcontrol.com/pictures/titles-nobility-amendment-defi...; http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html;  ?unverified? http://www.barefootsworld.net/13table.html?http://www.original13thamendment.com/newhampshire.htmlhttp://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-11.html).  
  #?. The oath I swore in 2003:  "I Harley Borgais, do hereby swear or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution for the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic...so help me God" (The parts replaced with ... no longer apply, but I honor this first part of it, and now the rest (...) is replaced by this: "..., and to promote the general welfare of life on Earth, ...".  it seemed that I was the only person to actually read my contract, not to mention the Declaration, the Constitution, and then on to supreme court decisions that defined the meanings of our Supreme Law.  I keep finding so many violations of our Constitution that I must act to defend it against the domestic enemies including but not limited to;  Secret Oaths, meetings, agendas, and Crimes of the wealthiest families (especially the central bank major stockholders;Rothschild,Rockefeller,Morgan,Schiff,Warburg,Lehman,Lazard, Isreal Moses Seaf,Goldman-Sachs,etc.);  lobbyists;  bill riders;  campaign contributions and slanderous, false, and/or misleading ads related there-to;  insider trading (Legalized for congress and FDA, by congress);  and other conflicts of interest like private ownership of any govt. unit/facility/etc., manipulating votes of those in congress with promises of gifts like cash, items, future jobs, or giving offices that regulate to past employees that were regulated by that office and vice-versa;  etc..
 #?. Original Arresting officers comments: Harley: "I wasn't causing any harm was I?", Officer Escarcega: "I agree you were not causing any harm", Harley: "I was driving safely wasn't I?", Officer Escarcega: "Yes", Harley: "Can you recite your oath please?", Officer Escarcega: "No".
  #?. US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse's recommendations:
  ...its recommendation: Congress should amend federal law to decriminalize the personal use and possession of cannabis and the casual distribution of small amounts for no or insignificant remuneration, and state legislatures should do the same. They also found that marijuana didn't meet the criteria of a Schedule I controlled substance...The commission concluded: "criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in an effort to discourage use. … The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior."  Since then, some 21.5 million Americans have been arrested and prosecuted for violation of laws against marijuana.  More than 80 percent of those arrested were charged only with possession, not sale. The cost of Nixon's "war on drugs," which intensified under Reagan and continues to this day, now exceeds $1 trillion.  The war on drugs has failed. It has had no significant effect on the use and availability of drugs.  (source:  http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/law-enforcement/)
  #?.  drug:  (accurate medical definition)
1. a chemical substance that affects the processes of the mind or body.
2. any chemical compound used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of disease or other abnormal condition.
(verified source:  http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/drug)  (The legal definition changes 'Chemical Compound' to 'Substance').
 #?. INFORMATION ABOUT THE FEDERAL CORPORATION CALLED THE "United States":
  From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
  "Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
  In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION [emphasis added] all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
  Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. ."
(source:  http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue66/uscorporation.html) Also see a speech by Louis T. McFadden in the House of Representatives on June 10th, 1932.
 #?. HYPOTHECATION, civil law. This term is used principally in the civil law; it is defined to be a right which a creditor has over a thing belonging to another, and which consists in the power to cause it to be sold, in order to be paid his claim out of the proceeds. (source:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hypothecation)
  #?.  The speech by Louis McFadden in Congressional House of Representatives on June 10th, 1932, is an excellent expose on the corruption of the Federal Reserve (the privately owned central bank that is destroying America).
  #?. Who owns the Federal Reserve: 1. Rothschild's of London and Berlin;  2. Lazard Brothers of Paris;  3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy;  4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York;  5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany;  6. Lehman Brothers of New York;  7. Goldman, Sachs of New York;  8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York. (verified source:  http://www.dailypaul.com/77899/the-primary-owners-of-the-federal-re...)
   #?.  There has been NO gold in the American reserves (the Fort Knox Treasury or the Federal Reserve Bank), since 1934. (verified sources:  Federal Reserve admits - We have no gold since:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl305N56CGY;  AND:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVjDACqumgA)
 #?. J.P. Morgan Interests, Buys 25 of America's Leading Newspapers and Insert Editors in 1915:
  U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947 Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:
  “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
  “These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.
  “This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.
  “This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is 'patriotism.' They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”
(verified source:  http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm)
  #?.  References that say the Gold fringe on the flags in courts denote Military or Martial law is used in that room;  Executive Order No.10834 (Sections 4 thru 20 are not included on many .gov websites, curiously);  Army Regulation 840-10, chapter 8;  36 USCS §§ 141 (not sure about this one yet), etc...  (sources:  suspiciously, whitehouse.gov, loc.gov, and another .gov website are missing these specific documents or sections thereof)
   79#?. ...Congressman Paul claims the the only definition for the “dollar” that he’s found in the United States Code is “371 grains of silver”.   371 grains = about 0.85 ounce.   (verified source:  http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/ron-paul-what-is-a-dollar/)  Another source said $1.00 is equal to 0.88 grams of Gold also (source:  youtube video: sola 5.28 Global Economic Slavery). The Value of the U.S. Dollar was apparently set to $35.00 for one Ounce of Gold by the 'Gold Standard'. (source:  )

Views: 1700

Comment

You need to be a member of United Truth Seekers to add comments!

Join United Truth Seekers

Comment by Harley Borgais on December 23, 2012 at 6:37pm

"Congressman Paul claims the the only definition for the “dollar” that he’s found in the United States Code is “371 grains of silver”.   371 grains = about 0.85 ounce." http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/ron-paul-what-is-a-dollar/
"Under this authority the president, on 31 January 1934, changed the value of the dollar from $20.67 to the troy ounce to $35 to the troy ounce, a devaluation of over 40%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

That gold price, is probably not even the original value of the dollar. I bet it costed less than 20.67 before 1913AD.

Now I am typing up a couple articles to post around:
Cause and Cure for Cancer and all diseases
What happened to America - and how to fix it
And 'How We Exist, The Genesis of Relativity'.
I will also post the oaths I have collected (if I did not put those here already), and whatever else that will be useful to people...
Like how to void debts to banks, legal troubles when they harmed no one (theres always more to add to that topic), driving without a license (always finding more proof)...Etc...

Comment by Pam Vredenburg on December 17, 2012 at 8:00am

Harley, I need a date & a link for your source at the end, I know you have added them through out the post but I still need a ending link. I added the picture for you. Please remember why I need these things. They will not post correctly if not done this way. Thanks & Great Job.

Comment by Harley Borgais on December 17, 2012 at 12:41am

The only real "United States Dollar" is the silver or gold coin (or real certificates, which say: payable upon demand in silver/gold coin...they are two different types for each metal)...
And they are really worth:
0.85 Oz of Silver or 0.88 grams of gold per Dollar!
Or 35 dollars per ounce of Gold.

(See 'Gold Standard', and Ron Paul found the value of the Dollar in silver in the actual law books)

Comment by Harley Borgais on December 17, 2012 at 12:39am

Correct, except I think for the date of our bankruptcy...The last gold was taken from the federal reserve in 1934 (see a youtube video on 'no gold in federal reserve').
The best expose I have found on the federal reserve is from a speech in 1932 from Louis McFadden....VERY informative, and MUCH worse than I even thought...
Apparently ANYONE in the world who uses 'Dollars' for a debt, can get the Federal Reserve to pay the debt, and that comes our of Americans pockets!

The references I have placed in my third post on this website give you what you need to prove much of what you and I say, and how to protect yourself, and punish those criminals in govt., media, and companies.

The soc. sec. office told me I cannot get my money back or remove myself from the system, but I bet I will figure out how to do it anyways, either by a 'jurisdictional challenge' or by charges of 'fraud' or 'extortion', or voiding the contract because I did not sign it!
That last one seems the most likely route (still working on that one).

Rocks2Rings

Help Pay The Rent. "United Truth Seekers" Is an informative Social Network exposing the truth that the mainstream media ignores. The truth will set you free!

This website is brought to you exclusively by member donations. Click Above, Thank you.

About

Eastern Standard Time

We’re “mining” cryptocurrency with our phones! I’m looking for people who want to join me and my friends and figured this would be a good way to get the word out. 🚀 I am sending you 1π! Pi is a new digital currency developed by Stanford PhDs, with over 10 million members worldwide. To claim your Pi, follow this link https://minepi.com/PAMUTS and use my username PAMUTS as your invitation code.

Download this and you will get cryptocurrency mining on your phone, and remember every 24 hours to open the app and touch the Pi button that way it automatically starts mining for you, you basically have to do nothing after that just let it Stay in the background mining cryptocurrency for you until one day it’s worth money for enough to cash it out!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEMAND THE TRUTH!

"It was the poverty caused by the bad influence of the
 English Bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and...the Revolutionary War."
– Benjamin Franklin

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry
June 26, 1788

 

© 2025   Created by Pam Vredenburg.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

google-site-verification: google4dc7c778a884c7b9.html