Monday, February 19, 2018

Mueller Indictment Meritless

In a recent course of events Special Counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, has filed a criminal indictment against several Russian nationals amid allegations they interfered in the 2016 presidential election in support of President Donald Trump.

As of this date, the Russian Kremlin has denied and altogether dismissed the federal indictment as "baseless." After personally reading through the 37 pages of the Department of Justice indictment I must agree with Russian officials that this submission is devoid of any merit.

First, where are the sworn statements attesting under oath as to the validity of the allegations? Second, and in further aggravation for lack of supporting documentation, where are the exhibits substantiating the allegations? If we filed a complaint like this in a competent court the judge would be right to sanction us for wasting time, resources, and further assess sanctions for harassing the defending parties. The court would also be correct in dismissing the action in its entirety.

For the mere fact that the U.S.D.O.J. alleges Russian interference in the United States' internal political affairs, it alleges a violation of the Right to Self-Determination. An allegation of such magnitude must be referred to the United Nations for informal resolution. If no informal resolution can be met, then a formal grievance filed with the International Criminal Court. This way, both nations and their members would be forced to demonstrate their position on the world stage beyond empty accusations.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Anarchy vs. Statism

There is a wide-spread misconception and it has to do with the term "statism." The purpose of this blog article is to nip it in the bud once and for all. Statism, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is:
"Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry."
The common misconception about statism is that it is "bad" and anarchy should replace it. Anarchy is simply no government. In anarchy there is neither law nor order, therefore, when disputes arise between parties there are no established systems the grieving party can proceed with to initiate a claim and seek remedy. Anarchy is not the answer.

What most people fail to understand is statism is necessary. The problem, however, is what form of statism they choose. People must either choose to government themselves through the Right of Self-Determination/Self-Exile/Self-Government or they allow others to rule over them. The bottom line is contracts and most people do not understand contracts, let alone the laws governing them.

Many years ago I was reading a brief biography on entrepreneur, lecturer and author, Robert Kiyosaki and Mr. Kiyosaki went straight to the point. The only way to create and keep wealth is to learn contracts, build a business that will sustain itself and service as many people as you possibly can. Everything you see at play on this planet is because of contracts be it money, religion, politics, education, everything. As a citizen, a contract was created to designate your role in society. It was the United States Constitution and it provides for you to simply pay taxes and don't question the public debt. See the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, if you are not agreeable to paying taxes via the Sixteenth Amendment as a Fourteenth Amendment Citizen, then you are not agreeable to your political status as a Citizen in the United States and neither favorable to the Constitution nor it's government. To top it off, you cannot directly sue the United States for a redress of grievances. Through the Incorporation Doctrine of the United States Supreme Court you are required to seek approval from your respective state and your state must take up your cause in Federal Court against the United States. There is no way around it because you are not a party to the Constitution. The Supreme Court gives you your privileges, not the Constitution itself. See Padelford, et al. v. Mayor of the City of Savannah, et al. (GA, 1854) at p. 6.

You have only two options at this juncture: (1) Remain a citizen, stop complaining and slave away, or (2) Vary your agreement, contract with others who want to self-govern and stop being subject to the whims of laws you are disagreeable to.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

MIT Scientist Calls NYT Report on Syrian Gas Attack 'Fraudulent'

On April 4, 2017, the United States not only broke the news that a sarin gas attack was executed upon a civilian population in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, they immediately knew within minutes that it was the Syrian government and demanded the U.S. government take immediate military action. So, without any form of a international field investigation, President Donald Trump approved of a missile strike on Shayrat Air Base April 7, 2017.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and much of his allies in the eastern hemisphere immediately demanded Trump back off for a formal investigation to take place or an escalation of the situation would be forthcoming in retaliation for the act of war by the United States. President Trump backed off and now 2 months later MIT professor emeritus, Theodore Postol, says the story promoted by the New York Times and Bellingcat were "fraudulent," ergo fake news.

In fact, I reported the violation of International Law by the United States in this blog on April 9, 2017, hinting the United States appeared to have "pre-appointed" roles for the situation, yet the so-called "intelligence" supporting the claim that the Syrian government was the culprit remains under lock-and-key. Postol states, "It seems to me that analysts were ignorant beyond plausibility or they rigged the analysis...To me, this is malpractice on a large scale."

Perhaps when the NYT finds itself banned and in the same boat as the Daily Mail by Wikipedia for lack of "reliability" in sourcing news, they might consider stronger ethics in reporting.


Monday, April 17, 2017

U.S. District Court: "No Constitution In My Court!"

There seems to be a pattern among court systems in the United States. Back in October 2005, long time tax protestor Irwin Schiff was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Kent Dawson to 12 years in prison for tax evasion and fraud. When Schiff attempted to use the 16th Amendment as his basis for arguing against the Federal income tax, he was given an additional 11 months for contempt. Irwin Schiff passed in October 2015 from cancer at 87 while still in custody.

Today, Cliven Bundy has a case in which the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was awarded a $1.2 million judgment against Bundy and attempted to seize his cattle to recover on their judgment. A standoff ensued in Nevada in which 19 arrests resulted and Bundy's attorneys have attempted to use the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as the basis for their actions. Judge Gloria Navarro has ordered the jury not to consider the Constitution as a part of their instruction and they cannot even bring a copy into Hon. Navarro's courtroom. As a result, Bundy's motions have been denied and his case has a received a devastating blow. Of course, Bundy will likely file an appeal.

(U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro)
Historically, in Padelford, et al., v. The Alderman of the City of Savannah, et al. (14 Ga. 438), the court ruled, "The Constitution is a compact... [and] no private citizen may have a right of action for breach of contract against the United States because they are not a party to it." Therefore, if a private citizen brings the U.S. Constitution to substantiate their arguments in court, they are trespassing on the property of another. For instance, no citizen in their right mind would bring the mortgage note of their neighbor to argue their own case with their mortgage lender.


Citizens are only afforded the Bill of Rights, not through the Constitution itself, but by the Incorporation Doctrine in which states are granted them in a limited capacity. Citizens must therefore petition their respective states to take up their cause against the United States. If a "right" can be granted at will, it can also be rescinded by the grantor at will.


(Disclaimer: Use of his video for education purposes expressly given to Blake Lynch by David Williams for Matrix Solutions.)

Sunday, April 9, 2017

U.S. Flagrantly Violates International Law With Act of War

A sarin gas attack in Syria made international headlines earlier this week as dozens of innocent civilians were killed. Immediately following this attack was a rushed point of blame by American news media against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Assad denies responsibility for this attack while Russia, China and Iran have sided with Syria on the issue. A case of convenient amnesia, however, appears to have befallen Americans and their allies emotionally charged by the incident.

As recent as 2012, Secretary Hillary Clinton approved sending sarin gas weapons from Benghazi, Libya to Syrian rebels (i.e., ISIS/ISIL) who opposed Assad. In fact, this was done on President Obama's watch. In 2013 and 2016, sarin gas was used against civilian populations. Of course, the U.S. blamed Assad, but instead of experts at the U.N. blaming Assad as the culprit, they blamed rebel fighters.

On Friday April 7, 2017, President Vladimir Putin condemned the U.S. attacks against Syria as "an act of war and a violation of International Law." Unfortunately, Putin is correct. China and Russia's call for an international investigation into the incident prompts suspicion on part of the U.S. as to "pre-appointed" roles regarding the gas attack, yet the "intelligence" being used to substantiate their claims is kept under lock and key by the U.S. intelligence community. International Law dictates United Nations approval is required prior to a military strike. When the "UN failed to protect human rights" by taking swift action against Assad, the U.S. launched 59 missiles against a Syrian Air Base on April 6, 2017.

Today, Russia and China garnered support from Iran with promised retaliation against the U.S. armed forces if it does not cease and desist violating International Law with their acts of war against Syria. If the Trump Administration fails to comply with these demands and International Law, he will effectively enter the United States into World War III against Eastern Super Powers.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Canada Preparing for Economic Collapse

(Canadian Prime Minster Trudeau)
Earlier this month of August 2016, it was reported by Canadian Times that Bill C-15 became law on June 22, 2016. What is Bill C-15? This Bill allows federal banking institutions in Canada to convert the public's deposits into common shares of stock in banks, especially when they are failing! So, imagine you have in excess of $100,000 in your Canadian bank account at this moment. Without clear notice, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, under the power of the Corporation of Canada, has the power to convert, in whole or in part, your deposit(s) into shares of common stock of your ailing financial institution. Good luck if your town is within the circumstances of a market fallout and you need to eat and a place to stay!

This controversial Bill C-15 titled the Budget Implementation Act was passed in Canadian Parliament and signed by Trudeau earlier this year on March 22, 2016. More specifically, the Act states at Section 2.3:
"An order made under paragraph 39.13(1)(d) gives the Corporation the power to convert, or cause the federal member institution to convert, in whole or in part - by means of a transaction or a series of transactions and in one or more steps - the institution's shares and liabilities that are prescribed by the regulations made under subsection (10) into common shares of that institution or any of its affiliates." (See Section 2.3 - Conversion).
The International Monetary Fund ("IMF") recognizes a housing bubble exists in Canada at this time and the average value of homes across Canada is 30% over valued at minimum. The IMF also understands that because it is only a matter of time before the housing bubble bursts preparations need to be made in order to mitigate losses for their member banks around the world. This means the United States as well as others are in line for similar measures!

The only way in which members of the public can prevent their deposits from reaching their national banking institution is to close their account(s). This way, the payer is forced to remit a check in which to be cashed instead of deposited. This might also mean one must look into investing in a safe.

(Canadian Times Reports on Bail-In, 8/11/2016)

Friday, July 15, 2016

War and Death By Breach of Contract

(Civil War Tribute at Veteran Memorial in Santa Clarita, CA.)
"The failure of the Confederacy to win recognition from foreign countries, and the effective blockade of their coasts by the Federal Navy, doomed the South to failure. When the war ended four years later, the human cost far exceeded what anyone had imagined at its start. The Union endured and the United States emerged stronger from this conflict. The Union lost 364,511 and the Confederacy lost 163,280 for a total of 527,791 Americans who died in the conflict." (See Civil War citation at left.)

In 1782, members of the United States of America and Britain met in Paris, France, to discuss and enter what would become the 1783 Treaty of Paris ("Treaty"). The parties at this meeting were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and John Adams from the United States. From Britain were David Hartley, ESQ., and Chief Negotiator and Merchant for King George, Richard Oswald, of Scotland.

As a result of this meeting in 1782, the Treaty was signed in 1783 by all parties and the Constitution for the People of the United States ("Constitution") came as a result in 1789. This Treaty was multi-fold. It first ended the American Revolutionary War and reconstituted the outstanding debt owed by the British North American Colonies from the French-Indian War to Britain. The Constitution even mentions "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States." (See Article I, Section 9, Clause 8). The term Esquire originates from England and is provided to licensed attorneys in the United States once they pass the "Bar-rister" exam and are admitted to practice law.
(U.S. Civil War Cemetery.)

Navigating back to the Civil War, the Confederate States attempted to secede from the Union and become recognized internationally by foreign states, however, this is in clear violation of the 1783 Treaty and the Constitution. As a result of the attack on Fort Sumter, South Carolina by the Confederates in 1861, over 500,000 soldiers between the Confederates and the Union perished before the war ended in 1865. This means half a million people died fighting for a cause premised on a breach and dishonor of international treatise.

Today, we have several States of the Union having expressed the desire to secede from the Union when the Constitution was created to "create a more perfect Union." Any attempts to secede from the Union will be found to be in violation of the Constitution and the 1783 Treaty. This will be considered an Act of War against England and that of the United States. The only way for people to "secede" out of the jurisdiction of the United States is by the former Right of Exile or what is known today as the Right of Self-Determination.