|
The Silver Bulletin
BILL MEDINA
REFERENCESBouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, Third revision (Eighth Edition) 1914, ISBN 0-8994-335-8, (Hereinafter: Bouvier's Volume _____, Page _____.) Constitution FOR the United States of America (hereinafter: by Article or Amendment), in pari materia with the California Constitution pursuant to Article III, Section 1 thereof. The Supreme Court on ABROGATION OF RIGHTS: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966). The Supreme Court on COMMON-LAW PLEA TO JURISDICTION: Roberts v. Lewis 144 U.S. 653: The Supreme Court on the COURTS OF STAR CHAMBER: Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 The Supreme Court on JURISDICTION: Maxfield's Lessee v. Levy 4 U.S. 308, 311, 312 (1797). The Supreme Court on RIGHTS OF CONTRACT: Hale v. Henkel, 20 U.S. 43, 74-75 (1906)
PART 1"The status of an individual used as a legal term, means the legal position of the individual in or with regard to the rest of the community. L. R. 4 P.D. 11. The rights, duties, capacities and incapacitates which determine a person to a given class, constitutes his status; Campb. Austin 137. ... ... The action of assumpsit must be reckoned a technical instrument which gave no small help to the forces which were making for the transition from status to contract; 3 Holdsw. Hist. E. L. 349." Bouvier's Volume 3, page 3129. MAJOR PREMISE NATURE'S GOD Created Mankind, Mankind created Constitutions, Constitutions created governments created Rules, Codes, Regulations, and/or Statutes (hereinafter called Enactments), most of which are nefariously Executed and Applied as some government -sponsored Court - Crime -Revenue Raising-Activity. The presumption that the THE PEOPLE are subject to government Jurisdiction by way of government Enactments, presumes that THE PEOPLE are subject to those Jurisdictions created by the Constitutions, which in-turn created Such governments in a self-perpetuating fashion. The Colonists' intent not to create a SOVEREIGN but rather, to further bind the Branches of government is made clear in the Preamble To The Bill Of Rights-December 15, 1791. "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." The Unlawful presumption that the Colonists intended to establish a SOVEREIGN, by Their Constitutional Charter, thereafter conferring upon Such SOVEREIGN certain Jurisdiction over the Colonists Themselves, is properly debunked by: Article I., Section 9, Clause 8 "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: --" and Article I., Section 10, Clause 1 "No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility." Any Jurisdiction emanating from a presumption of a fiction is presumptive or fictitious, and Such is a Factitious Tool For Unlawful Control. Government sovranty over THE PEOPLE is a presumption and a fiction, and which when once repudiated, must thereafter be proved to exist. If the Individual cannot be Proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction of any Constitution or Other Social Contract or Compact, He also cannot be proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction of any Branch of government Created Thereunder. Likewise, if it cannot be Proved that The Individual is DIRECTLY Subject to the Jurisdiction of any Legislature, it also cannot be Proved that He is INDIRECTLY Subject to Such Jurisdiction by way of any Legislative Enactments. In the absence of proof that The Individual is subject to the Jurisdiction of any Constitution or other Social Contract or Compact, Jurisdiction over Him DOS NOT EXIST. ARGUMENT - SUMMARY The general requirement that "... the burden is on the defendant to show the nonexistence of Jurisdictional facts; Russell v. Butler, (Tex.civ App.) 47 S.W.406; Gilchrist v. Oil Land Co., 21 W.Va.115, 45 Am.Rep.555.", (Bouvier's Volume 2, Page 1763), is resolved by Article VI which defines exactly Who is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution, and exactly Who shall be Contractually Bound by Oath or Affirmation to support Such Constitution in Consideration for Offices Of Public Trust and those Benefits of Public Service and Public Employment. "... The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executives and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..." Article VI Since the intent of Article VI is to define exactly to Whom the Constitutional Jurisdiction applies; since the fact exists that THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI, prima facie; See: INCLUSIO UNIS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS: Black's, Page 687; since no presumption that THE PEOPLE are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution is, or can be made; since all Constitutions are considered in pari materia with all other Constitutions; since all Constitutions are subject to the provisions of Article VI; since no Constitution operates on THE PEOPLE at-large by virtue of the fact that THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI, et sqq; then in pursuing His occupations of Common-Right, the Individual has made no Oath or Affirmation supporting any Constitution, and He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions. CONCLUSION - SUMMARY If The Individual is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Enactment made by any Constitutionally Created Legislature; if He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Jurisdiction presumed by any Constitutionally Created Executive Branch of Government; and if He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Jurisdiction presumed by any Constitutionally Created Judiciary. In the complete absence of any Lawful and verified Oath or Affirmation made by a Nonparticipant Individual, to support any Constitution; or in the complete absence of proving a Higher Title to that Property Known and Described as the Nonparticipant Individual Himself, In Personam Jurisdiction does not exist; and in the complete absence of proving a Lawful and voluntary contract made by Such Nonparticipant, pledging Himself and/or His Property- Rights to certain specified performance, Subject Matter Jurisdiction does not exist; and in the complete absence of any Lawful and verified complaint made against Such Nonparticipant, wherein a Real Injured Party Claims a Damage, no criminal Jurisdictions exist; thus in the complete absence of proving the existence of either In Personam and or Subject Matter Jurisdiction, governmental Jurisdiction over the Nonparticipant Individual does not exist. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. TORT REMEDY Every Act perpetrated by any Constitutional Created Branch of government while absent Jurisdiction; every Such Act being required to be made unlawfully under Forces of Arms; and every Such act having been made without probable cause; then, every Such Act is required to have been made as a Trespass, and/or other Tort upon a Nonparticipant Individual, and shall constitute a Case to be pursued against the Perpetrator in an Action At Law for the recovery of Damages.
PART 2HISTORY The Revolutionary War was principally financed by "Old-World" International Banking Interests (hereinafter called Federalists), Who had made Substantial Investments into the Colonies for the purposes of making Profits and Gains through Their Imports into, and their Exports from the Colonies, where All Such Trade was conducted in International Commerce under the Laws of Nations (in the Admiralty Jurisdiction). Having been the Powers behind the Thrones and Churches throughout most of "Civilized" History, The Federalists Conspired to establish a Strong Central "Sovereign" Jurisdiction in the New Colonies to facilitate Their Control over the Colonists themselves as Feudal Lords of Their Private Lands. Yielding to those Economic Pressures to establish an Area in which International Commerce could be conducted pursuant to the Laws of Nations (Admiralty), the Colonists established a Ten Mile Square (approximately., 3.2 miles x 3.2 miles) ADMIRALTY ZONE to be the Seat of the Admiralty Government of the United States. SEDITION BY SYNTAX ("United States" DOES NOT mean "United States of America" or "the Several States") The aforesaid Admiralty Zone, now called Washington, D.C., is analogous to the Thirteen Block Section known as "London Town" which was established approximately 1066 A.D., under William the Conqueror, which IS NOT part of Great Britain proper, and which operates principally in the Admiralty Jurisdiction. Just as "London Town" IS NOT part of Great Britain proper, Washington, D.C., IS NOT part of the several United States of America, and Washington, D.C., was created by Cession of particular States, and by the acceptance of Congress, to become the Seat of the Government of the United States. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and the "United States" as defined in Title 18 U.S.C. Section 5, "Title" 26 U.S.C. Section 3121(e)(2), and Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1603(c). In 1790 the PUBLIC DEBT was 75 Millions of Dollars-by-Weight of Gold or Silver, and on or about 1790, the First National Bank was given a Twenty (20) Year Charter.
By 1792, "worthless as a continental" was commonly used to describe
those bitter Private Loss-Experiences connected the "The Continental
This technique enable the Federalists to draw-off THE PEOPLES' Wealth
replacing it with PAPER.
On April 2, 1792, the Congress (of the several States) passed The
Coinage Act of 1792, Such Act exactly compelling the United States to
Perform in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the
Constitution, by Prohibiting the United States from issuing PAPER
Currency at any time in the future.
In or about 1810, the Congress refused to renew the Federalists'
National Banking Charter.
In or about 1812, the Federalists declared War on the United
States.
In or about 1815, the Second National Bank was given a twenty (20)
year Charter.
In 1815, the court in the case of De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cases
Number 3, 776 stated that:
"A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of
Admiralty Jurisdiction."
In 1835, the Public Debt was 38 thousands of Dollars-by-weight of Gold
or Silver, THE LOWEST EVER.
In 1836, President Andrew Jackson forced the closing of the Second
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am
convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the
breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits
amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell
me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I
shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but
that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand
families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and
thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I
will rout you out!"
At the time of the Second Session of the 36th Congress in 1861, while
absent a significant PUBLIC DEBT, the Federalists had failed to
procure Jurisdiction over all of the Property contained within the
several States by Rights of Debt through Contractural Banking
Obligations.
Finding Themselves unable to Lawfully Manipulate Credit and Monetary
Policy to Their own Gains, Advantages, and Benefits, the Federalists'
United States joined in Collusion and Conspiracy with Certain of the
several States, and with Certain Foreign Powers under the General
Auspices and Control of the Said Federalists, to Commit Treason by
Unlawfully Declaring War on Those Lawfully Constituted Governments of
the United States of America, Such War being for the Singular Purpose
of Overthrowing the Aforesaid Lawful Jurisdictions by Forces-Of-Arms,
in a "CIVIL" Counterrevolution for the Purposes of Imposing Federal
Admiralty Jurisdiction Upon Each of the United States of America, and
upon Each of THE PEOPLE habitat therein.
In 1863, in order to finance Their "CIVIL" Counterrevolutionary
Activities, the Federalists passed The National Currency Act of
February 25, 1863, Such Act providing for the Issue of Commercial
Paper Currency Secured by a Pledge of United States' Stocks, and the
Act provided for "circulation and redemption thereof". See The Story
of Money, Third Edition (1981), published by: Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, 33 Liberty Street, New York, N.Y., U.S.A., Postal Zone:
10045.
"The Federal Government couldn't raise enough money to pay for the
Civil War through bond sales and taxes. As rapidly as the treasury
paid bills with gold and silver coin, the metal was hoarded.
Reluctantly, Congress issued paper money -- U.S. notes -- that wasn't
redeemable in gold or silver. Congress tried making the notes
acceptable by declaring them "legal tender", which meant that they had
to be accepted in payment of all private debts. The government also
began chartering "national banks" which were given paper currency they
could issue as their own. State banks were stopped from issuing notes.
National banks received currency in proportion to the amount of
Government bonds they purchased."
On December 18, 1865, the Congress enacted the Thirteenth Article
Amendment abolishing Involuntary Servitude while leaving VOLUNTARY
Servitude to Contract in its place.
By 1866, the Counterrevolution had been successful, the United States
had won, the United States of America had fallen and were held
hostage, Federal Jurisdiction and Martial Law had been Imposed, the
Federal Monarchy had been installed, and the Public Debt, which was
soon to become unquestionable, had attained a value of 2.7 Billions of
Dollars-by-Weight of gold or silver.
In July of 1868, the Federalists made Their Declaration of United
States Jurisdiction in the form and manner of the Fourteenth Article
Amendment to The Constitution for the United States of America.
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States
...", and Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United
States ... shall not be questioned." (Emphasis added)
While the Thirteenth Amendment abolished PRIVATE ownership of PEOPLE,
the Fourteenth Amendment made possible the PUBLIC ownership of
PERSONS. In or about 1870, under the banner of the Census or
Enumeration directed to be taken within every subsequent Term of ten
Years, the formal practice of Birth Registration was begun, thereafter
Recording Births in the Bureau Of The Census, Department of
Commerce.
In 1884, in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, the Supreme Court
upheld the United States in reneging on Its Promise To Redeem Its
Paper by allowing Its Money Trust to enter a silent interpleader,
whereupon Judicial Notice was taken of a Third Party Contract
resulting from Julliard using His Commercial Paper Currency as
security in a Transaction for his 100 Bales of Cotton thus promoting
the practice if Discharging Debt by Obligatory Notes instead of
Tendering Payment for Debt in Lawful and Substantive Money in Dollars-
by-Weight of gold or silver.
In 1897, the Supreme Court in the case of The Glide, 167 U.S. 623,
stated that:
"The Admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution
and laws of the United States upon the District Courts of the United
States is exclusive."
In 1904, the court in the case of Dailey v. New York, 128 F. 789,
stated that:
Jurisdiction attaches in case of a maritime contract irrespective of
the question whether it is to be performed on land or water."
In 1907, there was an economic depression.
On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Knox Falsely and Fraudulently
Certified that the Sixteenth Article Amendment to the Constitution had
been Lawfully Ratified.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that The Sixteenth Article Amendment did not
REPEAL those Restrictions Imposed on the United States by Article I,
Section 2, Clause 3, or Article I, Section 8, Clause 1; pursuant to
those Directives of Article V. Even if it were valid by having been
properly ratified, The Sixteenth Article Amendment amended absolutely
nothing pertaining to the several States or the Inhabitants
thereof.
The Congress, being well aware of these Facts, never ENABLED The
Sixteenth Amendment as Public Law by Appropriate Legislation, in that
the Amendment did not REPEAL the aforesaid Restrictions, and the
Internal Revenue Code ("Title" 26 U.S.C.) which is predicated upon the
Sixteenth Amendment, is now, and has always been, "Private Law" based
upon Public Commercial (Contractual) Law. See Amendment XXI, ratified
December 5, 1933, for the Construction of a "REPEAL".
SEDITION BY SYNTAX ("Public DOES NOT mean
"Private".)
More-often-than-not, Public Commercial Law has been called, "PUBLIC
LAW" where It is in-fact, Public Commercial Law regulating Private
Commercial Contracts and Interests in Equity and Contractual
Performance made within the Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Presumably, on April 8, 1913, the several States "VOLUNTARILY"
surrendered, and Consented to Deprive Themselves of, Their Rights of
Suffrage by the Imposition of the Seventeenth Article Amendment to the
Constitution, Such Amendment being an Abrogation of the Intent,
Directive, Legal Construction, and Relevant Structural Conditions set
forth in Article I, Section 3, and in Article V providing that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of Its Equal Suffrage in
the Senate.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that When THE PEOPLE of the several States
Chartered the United States as an Admiralty Jurisdiction, it WAS NOT
the Legislative intent of the September 1787 Congress to put into
effect a self-destruct mechanism, Such as could possibly make a
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to the several States, where, upon
Its Ratification through any mechanism, the Constitutional
Prohibitions regulating the United States would somehow cease to
exist.
The Congress Itself, has never had the Power to modify The Very
Constitution that Created the Congress Itself (Article I, Section 8),
and any lawful modification done by way of Amendment, can only be made
through the Legislature of three-fourths of the several States, or by
Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
The Congress has been Delegated only those Seventeen (17) Powers
enumerated in Article I, Section 8. All other Powers NOT vested by the
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof, are specifically reserved to THE PEOPLE
for Their exercise of Primary Jurisdiction over Their Respective
Governments. See the Tenth Article Amendment to the Constitution FOR
the United States of America.
The Congress, once again being well aware of these Facts, never
ENABLED The Seventeenth Amendment as Public Law by appropriate
legislation, in that the Amendment did not REPEAL Article I, Section
3, nor did it REPEAL Article V of the Constitution.
During the Second Session of the 63rd Congress on December 23, 1913,
two days before Christmas while most of the legitimate Congress
vacationed, the Federal Reserve Act was passed by a Congressional
Quorum
The FED Corporation Act Fraudulently CONVERTED the Lawfully Delegated
Congressional Power To Coin Money and regulate the Value thereof,
while simultaneously Such Act franchised and enabled the newly created
FED Corporation to counterfeit Certificates, Notes, Securities, and
Other Obligations of the United States by providing for the Private
Issue of Private PAPER Currency, where such Public issue of Public
PAPER Currency was prohibited to the Congress by Law under Article I,
Section 8, Clause 5; and the Coinage Act of April 1792.
The Congress effectively franchised the FED Corporation to carry out
that which was Unlawful and Prohibited to the Congress Itself.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that no constitutional Amendment pursuant to
Article V was ever made Such that the Article I, Section 8, Clause 5
and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 Prohibitions by the Constitution
were REPEALED. Consequently, the Federalists have continued to operate
exclusively as Special-Charter Franchisees by Underwriting and
Insuring the PUBLIC DEBT in the form and manner of Their FED
Corporation, by way of Their own "Sub-Charter" Banks, all under
Private Contract Law, and all within the United States' Admiralty
Jurisdiction.
Amongst the rumors and presumed excuses for creating the FED
Corporation was the alleged creation of a theoretically "ELASTIC
CURRENCY" such as would supposedly s-t-r-e-t-c-h so as to avoid those
economic depressions as occurred in 1907.
To accomplish this, the FED Corporation printed and circulated Notes,
the value of which was 400% of all Lawful money in circulation. This
was called "fractional reserve banking" at 25% of par value.
Thus the FED Corporation printed and circulated four (4) Paper Dollars
for every one (1) Dollar-by-Weight of Gold or silver supposedly held
in reserve in The United States Treasury; thereafter, each one (1)
Dollar certificate had an Actual Redemption Value to twenty-five (25)
cents. This technique, by the way of Their FED Corporation, enabled
the Federalists to withdraw Gold from circulation replacing it with
PAPER.
The average Man-On-The-Street was led to believe that the Paper Twenty
Dollar Gold Certificate that he held in his Left Hand, had the same
Redemption Value as the One Ounce Twenty Dollar Gold Coin that he held
in His Right; where in-fact, Each Twenty (20) Dollar Certificate had
an actual Redemption Value of Five (5) Dollars-by-Weight of Gold or
Silver supposedly held in reserve.
While such "Paper" obligations were prohibited from being issued by
The Congress Itself due to The Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, nothing
prohibited the FED Corporation from issuing Its PRIVATE Silver
Certificates and later, Its totally unredeemable FED Corporation
Notes.
From 1914 to 1929, the United States Congress spent the value of four
(4) Paper Dollars for every one (1) Dollar-by-Weight of gold or silver
held in reverse in Its United States Treasury, thus the Congress
participated in extortionate extensions of credit through the
continuing re-discounting of commercial PAPER currency as performance
obligations.
This technique once again enabled the Federalists to draw-off THE
PEOPLES' Wealth replacing it with Paper.
By 1919, the Public Debt was 25 billions of Dollars-by-Weight of gold
or silver.
On January 16, 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment was installed providing
that after One Year from the Ratification of This Article, the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within,
the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from THE
UNITED STATES AND ALL TERRITORY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF
FOR BEVERAGE PURPOSES WAS PROHIBITED.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that United States Federal Jurisdiction to
enforce the Eighteenth Amendment within the Jurisdictions of the
several States was notably absent, as succinctly set forth in the
Enabling Clause, where THE CONGRESS AND THE SEVERAL STATES shall have
CONCURRENT Power to enforce This Article Appropriate Legislation.
This Article operated exclusively upon the UNITED STATES AND ALL
TERRITORY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, but This Article was
without general Force and Effect on the several States unless Each of
Such several States individually volunteered to enforce the Article by
Appropriate Legislation.
Prohibition, as it was foisted on THE PEOPLE, provided many
opportunities to install a strong Federal Police Force by creating the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, by enhancing the Secret Service, and
by strengthening the preexisting Bureau of Internal Revenue, to name
just Three.
By October 1929, the theoretically "ELASTIC CURRENCY" had s-t-r-e-t-
ch-e-d to the point where the Public Debt was 17 Billions of Dollars-
byWeight of gold or silver.
By June of 1933, at the termination of Its Twenty (20) Year Charter,
after having ravaged the Nation with Four (4) years of Depression By
Design, the FED Corporation Called Its outstanding United States'
obligations. The United States' Treasury was bankrupt, and the
creditdiscounted value of Its commercial PAPER currency had s-t-r-e-t-
c-h-e-d to such proportions that the Congress was forced to declare an
undeclared bankruptcy, without ever having explained the undefined
"emergency" mentioned in House Joint Resolution 192, and without ever
having notified THE PEOPLE At-Large of the Aspects, Conditions,
Nature, or Causes of the Said emergency.
"HJR 192 JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD STANDARD AND ABROGATE
THE GOLD CLAUSE, JUNE 5, 1933 (H.J. Res.192 73rd Cong., 1st Sess.)
Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies
of the United States.
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest,
and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of
obligation which purport to give the obligee a right to require
payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United
States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured
thereby, obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of the
money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared
policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of
every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets
and in the payment of debts. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That [a] every provision
contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to
give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular
kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United
States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and
no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any
obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or
hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision contained
therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon
payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time
of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.
Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be
issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed,
but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other
provision or authority contained in such law.
(b) As used in this resolution, the term "obligation" means an
obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States,
excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the
term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States,
including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal
Reserve banks and national banking associations.
SEC. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of
section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to relieve the existing
national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing
power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason
of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to
agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of
joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes", approved May 12, 1933
is amended to read as follows:
"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal
Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or
issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private,
public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when
below the standard wight and limit of tolerance provided by law for
the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in
proportion to their actual weight." Approved, June 5, 1933, 4:40
P.M."
Thus On June 5th 1933, the United States Treasury was foreclosed upon
by the FED Corporation because the United States' Treasury could no
longer pay Its Credit obligations on Its commercial PAPER currency.
SEDITION BY SYNTAX ("Department of the Treasury" DOES NOT mean "United
States Treasury Department".)
Upon making the foregoing UNDECLARED "declaration of bankruptcy", the
Federalists' Congress began CONVERTING those ALLODIAL LAND TITLES that
were Privately Owned by THE PEOPLE, At-Large.
In June of 1933, the Pennsylvania State Legislature pledged the
privately owned Allodial Land Titles belonging to THE PEOPLE of the
State of Pennsylvania, as security for Its portion of the PUBLIC DEBT
(Penn. PL 111). Also see California Government Code Section 126
generally, and specifically Section 126(c). The result of pledging
Such Titles as Security for a perpetual PUBLIC DEBT is: that upon
Default by the United States, Ownership of the "Pledged" Land will
revert to "Public" Federalist Control in satisfaction of Their "Public
Debt".
After Fraudulently Pledging Such Titles in which the United States had
NO LAWFUL INTEREST, The Congress soon thereafter, began another of Its
"borrowing-spending" sprees designed to spend-out the Values of those
Privately Owned Land Titles.
In August of 1933, an Executive Order Issued making it illegal for
private Americans to own or trade in gold.
On December 5, 1933, The Eighteenth Article Amendment, having
fulfilled Its designed purposes, was REPEALED by the Twenty-first
Article Amendment, and like the Eleventh, Twelfth, Fourteenth,
Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-Second, and
Twenty-Fifth Amendments, the Twenty-First Article Amendment was never
ENABLED as Public Law by Appropriate Legislation.
In 1934, the Federalists passed The 1934 Gold Reserve Act which
Proclaimed that gold could not be used as a medium of domestic
exchange, and made it illegal for private Americans or firms to own
Gold Bullion. This the Act effectively withdrew all remaining Gold
from Monetary Circulation by requiring that it be tendered to the
Federal Government. Additionally, the Act also restricted private
ownership of gold to those who must use gold for industrial or export
purposes (a restriction that was rescinded as of December 31,
1974).
Once again the average Man-on-the-street was lead to believe that the
Paper One Dollar Silver Certificate that he held in his left hand, was
of the same Redemption Value as the Silver Dollar that He held in his
Right.
The Gold Reserve Act was enforced under the Police Powers of the
United States by the Internal Revenue Service, and Those who failed to
relinquish, or refused to tender Their Gold to the Federal Government
in exchange for Its Paper, were faced with the confiscation of Their
Property, Arrest, Trial, Fines, penalties, and/or Imprisonment.
In 1935 the Social Security (old-age retirement) "Insurance" Act (49
Stat 620) was created by the Congress providing:
In 1939 The Congress passed the Public Salaries Tax Act which imposed
an "income" tax on every "Public" Employee.
In 1942 the Congress passed the "Victory Tax Act" (a direct tax)
wherein five percent (0.05) of the value of One's wages was levied,
withheld, and converted toward the war effort as an "income" tax.
The "Victory Tax Act" was unlawful on its face in that it violated
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of
the Constitution; however, the nation was at War, and no one really
complained too loudly about the Violations and Illegalities of Such
Act, although vocal oppositions to Such Violations and Illegalities
are noted in the Congressional Records pertaining thereto.
In 1944 the "Victory Tax Act" was repealed by the Congress.
In 1945 the Congress passed the "McCarren Act" which provides that ALL
"Insurance" be regulated in Interstate Commerce pursuant to Article I,
Section *, Clause 3 of the Constitution. See "McCarren Act" -- Black's
5th, Page 883, "Internal Security" -- Black's 5th Page 732, "Internal
Security Acts" -- Black's 5th, Page 732, Title 18 U.S.C. 2385 and
2386.
In 1961 the Congress decided to violate the Contractual Restriction
that the Social Security Account Number was "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION
PURPOSES" BY USING SUCH NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION.
In 1968 Silver was withdrawn as the Substantive Security, Protection,
and Indemnification supporting the value and buying-power of the Paper
One Dollar Silver Certificate, and Such withdrawal of "backing" was
accompanied by further extensions of fractional-reserve lending,
Meanwhile, the Social Security Trust Fund was technically and
functionally abolished, and those funds that still remained, after
extensive government "burrowing", were ultimately CONVERTED by adding
them to the General (revolving) Fund, where such Funds promptly
"revolved" right out of existence.
Once again the average Man-On-The_street was led to believe that the
PAPER One Dollar Federal Reserve Note that he held in His left hand,
was of the same redemption value as the PAPER One Dollar Silver
Certificate that he held in His Right, and That was the Truth.
By 1976 the Social Security Account Number was used to "Identify" Each
of THE PEOPLE, At-Large as a United States "person" and the Congress
added Title 26 U.S.C. 6109 (d) to sanctify its own betrayal.
Thus culminating in HJR 192, the Federalists' Congress had abrogated
Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 by digressing from borrowing money on
the credit of the United States, through borrowing credit on the money
of the United States, through borrowing credit on the money of THE
PEOPLE AtLarge, through borrowing credit on the credit of the United
States, through borrowing credit on the privately held Allodial Land
Titles of THE PEOPLE within several States, to borrowing credit on the
perpetual servitude and continued mandatory performance of THE PEOPLE
themselves.
Thus when all was said and done, direct Taxes were still required to
be apportioned AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES; all Duties, Imposts, and
Excises were still required to be uniform; No ... direct, Tax could be
laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration; and no tax or
Duty could be laid on Articles-in-Commerce exported from any State.
Part 2 of the series described:
Accordingly, THE PEOPLE are the Lawful Heirs to Hereditaments, both
Corporeal and Incorporeal, by Hereditary Succession, inclusive of the
Highest Titles to those individual Properties known and described as
THE PEOPLE Themselves, Sui Juris.
Likewise the fact that THE PEOPLE physically exist as Human Life
Forms, clearly establishes Their Rights to Live, Their Self-Rights of
TITLE-TO-SELF, and Their Rights to defend Their Lives which began,
existed, and successfully operated through Their individual Genetic
Linages and Heritages, wherein all such Rights have existed long
antecedent to the formation of any constitution; consequently, THE
PEOPLE are required to make NO CLAIMS for any so-called "rights" that
might have been accidently enumerated or stipulated to in the Text(s)
of any such Instrument.
As Instruments, Mankind created constitutions, or Social Contracts or
Compacts, thereby created governments. See "Social Contracts or
Compacts", Black's 5th, Page 1246.
PLEASE NOTICE that NO constitution ever provided THE PEOPLE with
Rights that They did not already possess prior to creation of such
Instrument.
Existence and formal recognition of preexistent Rights is demonstrated
throughout The Magna Carta, June 15, 1215; the Declaration of Rights
in Congress, at New York, October 19, 1765; the Declaration of Rights
in Congress, at Philadelphia, October 14, 1774; the Declaration of
Independence July 4, 1776; the Articles of Confederation, November 15,
1777; and the Bill of Rights inclusive of the Ninth and Tenth Article
Amendments, December 15, 1791, etc.
PLEASE NOTICE that throughout all of the Aforementioned Instruments,
it cannot be proved that THE PEOPLE are subservient to any conditions
of any such Instruments, nor to any conditions set forth or decreed by
any pseudo sovereign.
By the conspicuous absence of Declarations of Subservience, it must be
presumed that the Colonists did not want to forfeit their Rights to
any sovereign, thus those so-called "rights" that were enumerated or
stipulated to in the Texts of Their Instruments, are in-fact, a series
of stringent Power limitations that operate NOT upon THE PEOPLE, but
upon Their governments so as to hopefully eliminate their
traditionally Lawless, inherently Sleezoid, Criminal Activities. See
the Declaration of Independence as the Colonists' Criminal Indictment
against George III.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that no Legislature has ever made ANY Lawful Act
that operates directly on THE PEOPLE at-large, simply because They do
not have the Power to make Such an Act. See Article I., Section 8.
The Constitution itself is recognized amongst the Laws Of Nations, as
a Common-Law Charter providing, in part, for the admittance of
admiralty Jurisdiction onto the land pursuant to the Law Merchant
(Black's 5th, page 798) within those geographic limits set forth in
Article I., Section 8, Clause 17.
Contracts made pursuant to Such Constitution operate in pari materia
with other Commercial or Mercantile statutes emanating from the Roman
Civil Jurisdictions, which are exercised under admiralty Jurisdiction
in LondonTown proper and in Washington, D.C., etc., where Such
contracts are generally identified or recognized throughout the World
under the Laws of Nations (Black's 5th, page 733), as having been
conducted under Flag Law. See "Flag Law", Black's 5th, page 574. See
"Law of Nations" and "Captures on Land", Article I., Section 8,
Clauses 10 and 11, respectively. See "State Names, Flags, Seals,
Songs, Birds, Flowers, and Other Symbols" by George Earl Shankle,
Pf.D., New York, The H. W. Wilson Company, 1941(?). See Flag Circular,
War Department, The Adjutant General's Office (Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1925) page 1. See "Army Regulations Number
260-10, Flags, Colors, Standards, and Guidons, by Order of the
Secretary of War (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1926)
pages 4 and 5.
PLEASE NOTICE the military
Article III., Section 1 provides that "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." Article I., Section 8, Clause 9 provides that "The
Congress shall have Power To constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme court;" and all such Article I courts operate solidly within
the admiralty Jurisdiction since the Congress and the United States
Itself so operates.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that "The judicial Power of the United States,
..." formed in the admiralty Jurisdiction , is what is being discussed
in THIS portion of the Constitution.
Article III., Section 2. provides that The Judicial Power shall extend
to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority; thus the judicial Power extends:
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that the Jurisdiction of the supreme Court is
subservient to the legislative branch because Article III., Section 2
states that "... the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction
... under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.", (pursuant to
Article I., Section 8, Clause 9); therefore, ALL APPEALS ARE APPEALS-
IN-EQUITY, MADE WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
Each constitution FOR each of the several States of the American
Union, embraces the Constitution FOR the United States of America;
thus, each State government is established in admiralty to regulate
Commerce.
Clearly then, whether brought in a State, or in a United States'
court, ANY "appeal" as to Law or Fact filed in ANY "appellate" court,
is being brought in the admiralty Jurisdiction because an "appeal" in
the technical sense, was unknown to the Common-Law, and it is the name
of proceedings for the review of cases in equity, and in the
ecclesiastical and admiralty courts. See HANDBOOK OF COMMON-LAW
PLEADING (Hornbook Series) by: Benjamin J. Shipman, First Copyright
1894, Last Copyright 1923, Sections 337-338, page 537.
Then At-Law, the Analog of an "equity appeal" is the Trial de novo
based on filing the Writ-Of-Error. See "trial" Black's 5th, page 1348.
See "writs" Black's 5th, page 1441.
Philosophically, the differences between Law and Equity are precisely
those between deductive and inductive thinking. Deductive logic looks
backwards, examining the general facts leading to a specific set of
conclusions; whereas, inductive reasoning looks in basing its general
presumption on a selected set of few specific facts, upon which It
derives Its General Conclusion, leading to equitable presumption and
PRE-VENGE that is: a sort-of irrefutable revenge in-advance.
Article III., Sectional 2: "The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases
of Impeachment, shall be Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the
State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; ..."
Apparently there were no plans for United States "crime" trial.
If this were true, the United States' District Courts would not have
territorial Jurisdiction since such courts do not legally lie within
the "State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;..."
Correspondingly then, the land upon which such District Courts were
located, would have been PURCHASED BY the CONSENT of the Legislature
of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, in which
event, the United States should be able to produce Its Title to Such
Property.
Article I., Section 8, Clause 17 provides that Congress exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such courts,
presumedly categorized as "needful Buildings" since (some of the time)
they do not actually qualify as Forts. Magazines, Arsenal, or dock-
Yards.
Article III., Section 2: "... but when not committed within any State,
What provides United States' Jurisdiction in admiralty? Is insurance
an admiralty contract?
The fact that PROCEDURES of Law and Equity were merged in the latter
1930's, does not for a single moment imply that the statutory laws
have superseded and/or replaced those bases of jurisprudence upon
which are predicated, Law, Equity and all those other Courts of
Executive Chancery, no more than Legislative Enactments or Supreme
Court decisions can overturn, supersede, replace, or unweave the very
fabric of the Constitutional Charters AT LAW, which first created
Their very existence IN the ADMIRALTY Jurisdiction Itself.
As far as the 1938 Erie R.R. decision proclaiming that there is no
longer a general federal Common-Law, We Present that: there never was
"a general federal Common-Law", since the admiralty jurisdiction has
never, cannot, and will never recognize the Common-Law! Common-Law and
admiralty are equal and opposite Jurisdictions.
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated
that the Supreme Court has the Power to interpret the very
Constitution that created such court, Itself. See "interpret" and
"interpretation" Black's 5th, pages 733 and 734.
Otherwise, it is entirely conceivable for government to activate a
self-destruct mechanism such that the Legislative and Executive
Branches could amend the Constitution in such a manner as to abolish
the Constitution itself. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in its
"interpretive" and "legislative" capacity, could uphold such Act by
proclaiming It as having been Constitutional! Think about it. If one
hires an employee under a contract-of-performance, can the employee
unilaterally modify the Said contract by arbitrarily deciding not to
abide by the terms thereof? We believe not.
When one is exercising Jurisdiction over Another's Being or over
Another's Rights, Property, or Liberties, "Jurisdiction" is called
"Powers" which INCLUDE ONLY those Powers permitted within the limits
of a voluntary contractual agreement, or by the results of a Common-
Law Suit. See"include" Black's 5th, page 687.
Otherwise, Jurisdiction can be Lawfully acquired ONLY by Permission of
He who has It, and It can ONLY be enforced by Forces of Arms resulting
in either the retention of, or the forfeiture of, Rights as
Property.
Since all of Man has Rights, and since Rights ABSOLUTELY cannot
conflict, Man has established courts to settle differences between Men
who would claim the same Rights at the same time, Such courts
theoretically avoiding some needless Bloodshed in Man's Trials-of
Rights by Battle.
To function as Such, courts require Jurisdiction in the manner of
Authority or Power to act, and Such Jurisdiction is properly divided
into three distinct classifications:
Notice the words: "authority", "legal right", "powers" of court,
"power" and "authority" of a court, "right" and "power" of a court ...
.
Rights and Powers are Property, and like water, "authority", "legal
right", and "power", must flow from a Higher Source to a lower
recipient. Put another way: "Authority", "legal right", and "power"
and all other Property is required to be Lawfully transferred from an
Owner (Donor) to a lower recipient (Donee). See Black's 5th, page
439.
Whom do you suppose provides the "authority", "legal right", and
"power" to a court? The non-existent SOVEREIGN that is prohibited by
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I., Section 10, Clause 1,
or the Party to a "suit of the King's peace" (Black's, page 1286) in
the manner of form of a criminal Action? CRIMINAL ACTION. "Proceeding
by which person charged with a crime is brought to trial and either
found not guilt or guilty and sentenced. An action, suit, or cause
instituted to punish an infraction of the criminal laws." Black's 5th,
page 336.
The transfer of Jurisdiction ("authority", "legal right", "power") is
based on the events surrounding One's appearance in ANY court action.
APPEARANCE. "A coming into court by a party to a suit, either in
person or by attorney, whether as plaintiff or defendant. The formal
proceeding by which a defendant submits himself to the Jurisdiction of
the court. The voluntary submission to a court's Jurisdiction."
Black's page 89.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
"His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client.
And where ever the duties of his client conflict with those, he owes
as an officer of the court in the administration of Justice, the
former must yield to the latter." Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 7,
Section 4.
IN THE GENERAL JURISDICTION
Thus if one makes a general appearance in an action, it is presumed
that he has voluntarily appeared to confer general jurisdiction on to
a court; that is: full and complete jurisdiction is presumed to have
voluntarily conferred onto the judge to act in the capacity of a
proper (statutory) judicial officer.
Under General Jurisdiction, if the Movant in a given Action happens to
be some division of the Executive Branch of Government, DMV or IRS for
instance, and if on Its Own Motion, A Court decides to proceed against
a Nonparticipant Individual, by presumption of Jurisdiction while
absent any actual presentation of proof of Jurisdiction by the Movant,
then during the period of time that the court acts and answers for the
Movant (Prosecutor), Who would be Acting for The Court, since the
tribunal would be standing Legally Vacant?
Also if the court (Judicially) Acts for the Movant-Prosecutor
(Executive), does it not create Conflicts-Of-Interest as established
by the Seperation-Of-Powers doctrine, and is it not in Violation
thereof? See "Violation", Black's page 1408.
If a judge were Contractually Disable to the Benefit of a Party to an
Action, could the Same Judge Properly sit and Act in the Capacity of
an Independent Judicial Officer? DISABILITY. "The want of legal
capacity. 'Incapacity to do a legal act.' It would include the
resignation of a judge before signing a bill of exceptions; McIntyre
v. Modern Woodman of America, 200 Fed. 1, 2 C. C. A. 1." Bouvier's
Volume i, Page 876.
If Such Judge were shown to hold ANY License or other Privilige-
OfState (driver, etc.), it would follow that Such Judge would also be
Personally Subject to the Jurisdiction of some Executive Branch of
government, DMV, for instance; and because Such Judge were personally
subject to the Same Jurisdiction that the Movant would attempt to
enforce upon the Nonparticipant Individual, Conflicts-Of-Interest
would arise by way of the Seperation-Of-Powers doctrine, sufficient to
cause recusation. See Black's 5th, page 1148.
Likewise, if the Said Judge files for, and/or pays a California State
or a United States' federal income tax , pursuant to the Public
Salaries Tax Act (1939) et sqq., not only do Conflicts-Of-Interest
arise by way of the Seperation-Of-Powers doctrine, but there also
exists a blatant violation and abrogation of Article III., Section l
wherein:
"... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall ...
receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
diminished during their Continuance in Office."
A Judge Who is subject to the jurisdiction of the executive branch,
cannot be impartial in matters concerning such executive branch. This
statement is fully and completely realized in: Lord et al. v. Kelly et
al. Civ. A. 63-932 240 F.Supp 67 at Page 69 (1965).
"The original appearance in this Court by counsel for the Government
was, if not insolent, at least none too respectful. The brief filed
following the Court's adverse decision and asking for reconsideration
thereof, showed more than hurt feelings and came close to being worthy
of a rebuke.
More than once the judges of a court have been indirectly reminded
that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware
that even in this very Commonwealth the Internal Revenue Service has
been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which has
presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called
political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score
the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal
Revenue Service he is inviting a close inspection of his own
returns."
If One were to argue that the Article III prohibition against
diminishing the Judges' Compensation, operates upon United States'
Judges of those inferior Courts (Article I., Section 8, Clause 9),
which the Congress has from time to time ordained and established; and
that Such prohibition DOES NOT attach to Judges on the States' Levels;
then Such argument remains to defy the Seperation-Of-Powers Doctrine
which is applicable on ALL Levels and which thereby demands an
Independent Judiciary extending to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
regardless.
Just as those Cases brought in the Common-Law Jurisdiction require the
Independent Jury Of-One's-Peers, those Commercial (Equity-Contract)
Cases brought in the admiralty Jurisdiction pursuant to Enactments and
Contracts or Maritime Claims respectively, require the Independent
Judiciary Such that It is free from Executive, Legislative, and all
other external forces, influences, and imminent manipulations.
Assuming for the Argument, that a court of General Jurisdiction has
been convened within the district wherein the "crime" shall have been
committed, thus satisfying Territorial requirements; and assuming that
the Nonparticipant Individual, is physically under the state's arrest,
custody, and control (not necessarily Lawfully), thereby presumably
satisfying In Personam Jurisdictional requirements by Forces of Arms;
then there still remains Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to be proved by
the Movant.
Exactly what Insurable Interest does the Movant (plaintiff) have in a
Nonparticipant Individual's Property, such as could cause attachment
of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Such Property? See Insurable
Interest". Black's 5th, Page 720.
If One uses One's Own Time and Energy (Property in the form of One's
Nonrenewable resource), to work (kds/dt) as a common-Right-matter in
exchange for Payment (Property in Value of Exchange); and if One uses
Such Property In Value Of Exchange to buy, say, an Automobile
(Property), how does California, for instance, obtain a legal interest
in the Said Automobile, sufficient that It can regulate, tax, control,
and prohibit the Nonparticipant Individual's free use of His Own(ed)
Private Property?
PROPERTY.
"That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs
exclusively to one; in the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights
which are guaranteed and protected by the government.
From the above definition of "Property", it would appear that
California has somehow managed to become the Legal Owner of the
Nonparticipant Individual's Property .
How then, did California obtain Title to the Said Private Property?
If California Incorporated were to claim Title to the Public Rights Of
Way. Such Rights-Of-Way would have become Private Privileges of
way.
The Facts remain that these Properties have either originated as
Private Toll Roads or as Highways in the Public Domain long antecedent
to the formation of California itself.
How then did California obtain Titles to the Said Private and Public
Properties?
Now if it were presumed that a "crime" were committed, Who and Where
is the Victim, damaged Party, or Real and actual Party-of-Interest?
If it is presumed that California, in Its Corporate Capacity, were
somehow damaged by way of some Nonparticipant Individual's
nonadherence to selected Legislative Enactments, how then was
California Incorporated actually damaged and to what extent?
If it were presumed that an Action be brought in the Name of the
"injured" People of California, Such Action would inevitably require
that:
!!! THIS IS WHY One is REQUIRED to volunteer into a GENERAL
Jurisdiction. !!!
The foregoing can occur only under private contract-law exclusively
within the admiralty Jurisdiction as defined in Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 otherwise the separation of powers doctrines forbid general
application of these anomalies.
From the foregoing it is plainly evident that governments have no
Jurisdiction over THE PEOPLE since THE PEOPLE cannot be proved to be
subject to the Jurisdiction created by Their own Constitution
Charters, and those presumptions that EVERY HUMAN BEING in this Nation
is subject to Enactments of the Legislature is rebuttable. See Black's
Page 1067.
Armed with Discovery and other Implements Of Due Process Of Law, a
belligerent "old time" Nonparticipant Individual might establish that
the whole of California's Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is limited to
repairing the holes in Public Rights-Of-Way.
|
(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.
Copyright 1996, 2014, by Gregory Allan; All rights reserved.