Snake Oil for Sale:
Whatever You've Got, We've Got The Cure!
The Article "Snake Oil for Sale" by Richard Michael, Sept. 19, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/dhedor completely misses the point.
The four step Reinhabit the Republic Plan (RRP) was proposed by high-ranking members of the military who are tired of taking orders from a corporate CEO, the President of the corporate united states, and who recognize the People as the last chance to avoid a third World War.
In fulfilling this "call to action", the men who wrote the Declaration of the Reinhabit the Republic Plan have, with the assistance of many other patriotic women and men, reinhabited the one true sovereign authority on the land, as the only lawful government of the united States of America in truth.
The immediate goal of the Reinhabit the Republic Plan is:
• Ending foreclosure and bank collection actions immediately (our first and seventh directives)
• Ending tax prosecutions immediately (second and sixth directives)
• Ending invasions, prosecutions and detentions for fictitious crimes against the state that lack an injured party other than insurrection, treason and frauds against the United States (third and eighth directives)
• Ending molestation on the byways (fourth and ninth directives)
• Production of sovereign identification and passports that do not proclaim subject-class citizenship (fourth and ninth directives)
• Restoration of the trappings of proper de jure governance (fifth and tenth directives)
• Restoration of the common law of the Land (third and eighth directives) reigning in of the admiralty color-of-law venue to the high seas (third and eighth directives)
• Restoration of the proper de jure judicial institutions such as the district court of the united States and the one supreme Court as constructed and restrained in the Constitution for the united States of America, c. 1787 (Phase 2, thirteenth through fifteenth directives)
• Reabsorption of the de facto judicial aberrations such as USDC into the de jure institutions (Phase 2, thirteenth through fifteenth directives)
• Permanent termination of territorial government outside of Constitutional limitations, beginning with voiding the Downes v. Bidwell monstrosity (Phase 2, eighteenth directive)
• Arrest and shackling of the District Court of the District of Columbia (Phase 2, sixteenth directive)
• Recognition of sovereign status in the police databanks of the land (fourth and ninth directives) and a lawful and orderly removal of the corporate state as the ruler of every aspect of your life.
We will accomplish all of that – BEHIND THE SCENES — lawfully, peacefully, without violence and without risking civil war.
Phase 2: Restoration of the people’s common law of the land.
With restoration of the de jure judicial institutions in Phase 2, we are also enacting the: ‘Bill of Rights of Law’ to prevent once and for all the "legal" franchise perversions of law into at-law, territorial, admiralty/military aberrations.
There will be no such entity as a non-Article III court, even when administering the admiralty law venue for genuine issues of the high seas and international commerce.
The "Bill of Rights of Law" has been written to address the perversions of law through statutes, Rules of Evidence, and Rules of Civil Procedure which have hijacked the law of the Land for the bar associations and converted the common law grand juries into prosecutorial kingdoms and slandered them as "runaway juries" instead of the fourth branch of government historically charged with overseeing government and protecting against tyranny by government officials.
Even the law enforcement agencies that have become interwoven in the tiniest issues of our lives will see the benefits of a return to the land where they can once again devote their skills to peacefully enforcing law, forever spared the risks of acting as agents for tyranny and the tragedies of assaulting the women and children of the sovereign People, their own mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters.
Confessions from the Horses Mouth:
• "28 USC 3002" (definition of the United States as a Federal corporation never taught in civics class; go to paragraph 15) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002-000.html)
• "27 CFR 72.11" (U.S. Inc. defines all crime as commercial as a result of the fall of the republic when the South walked out of congress in 1861 and the de jure congress, unable to raise a quorum, was replaced by Lincoln with the de facto corporate Congress; and the de jure district court of the United States was replaced by the de facto corporate UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_98/27cfr72_98.html)
• "Executive Order 6102" (government’s confiscation of your family’s gold and wealth under threat of 10 years in prison for failure to comply. As the Order specifies U.S. "persons" (eg. JOHN SMITH and JANE DOE), law enforcement was duped into enforcing against the general public a command that only applied to Federal employees and members of the armed forces.) (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611 or http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html)
• "HJR 192" (outlawing of the simple act of "paying with money" as a felony by substituting the lawyer’s parlor trick of "discharging" debts) (http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/HJR192.htm or http://www.nomoredebt.cc/hjr192.html)
• "Congressman Louis McFadden speech" (indictment of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board of Governor’s for treason by the chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee in 1934. In scathing speeches to Congress, McFadden said: "(The Fed) has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government." This most knowledgeable man on banking also explained in vivid detail the method for recruiting the Federal Reserve to pay our debts as holder of the gold, and which is at the heart of today’s "tax remedies.") (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/mcfadden-frb.html or http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty10.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden)
• "Lewis v. United States 680" (Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned: "…we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." Lewis v United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). In other words, the Fed enjoys no United States immunity from law suit because it is a Federal institution in name only. (http://nesara.org/court_summaries/lewis_v_united_states.htm and http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html)
• "Modern Money Mechanics" (The Fed’s concise operational manual showing how money AND INTENTIONAL INFLATION are created from thin air by the Fed and its member banks. The manual is very clear as to the power of created inflation to speed the process of confiscating your wealth. The section: "Who Creates Money?" and the final paragraph in "Bank Deposits – How They Expand or Contract" are worth extra attention.) (www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf or http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/Introduction )
• "Grace Commission" (Confirmed that virtually ALL taxes actually go to the Federal Reserve Bank to pay interest on the U.S. debt to the banking families that own the International Monetary Fund (IMF): "With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." J. Peter Grace, Cover letter, President’s Private Sector Report on Cost Control, January 12, 1984. Peter Grace was considered the Warren Buffett of his time, and the Grace Commission Report received widespread media attention as the gospel of Reagan’s so-called tax system overhaul.) (http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html or http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm)
• "31 CFR 103.11" (Promissory note is defined as a "monetary instrument:" "(u) Monetary instruments…Monetary instruments include…All negotiable instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier’s checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee (for the purposes of Sec. 103.23), or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.") (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/31cfr103.11.htm or http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/regulations/31CFR103.htm)
• "NYUCC 3-104" (Promissory note is defined as a "negotiable instrument:" "(1) Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this Article must (a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and (b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by this Article; and (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and (d) be payable to order or to bearer. (2) A writing which complies with the requirements of this section is (a) a "draft" ("bill of exchange") if it is an order; (b) a "check" if it is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on demand; (c) a "certificate of deposit" if it is an acknowledgment by a bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it; (d) a "note" if it is a promise other than a certificate of deposit.) (www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-104.html)
• "Senate Report 93-549" (The United States has been under dictatorial control since March 9, 1933. Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Senate Report 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Acts, November 19, 1973. "Foreward: Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.") (http://www.scratchinpost.net/barefootbob/war_ep1.html)
• "Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)." (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. "It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.")• "Caha v. US, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)" (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.")• "U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222." (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. "There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.")
• "Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)." (Purportedly decided if the constitution applies to U.S. territories. In actuality, unleashed the great fraud of unlimited statutory power misapplied throughout the continental united States of America. Dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall Harlan."…two national governments, one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result…We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism…It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence." In other words, a genuine de jure united States of America congress is always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the constitution. He held to the obvious truth that congress does not exist, let alone have powers, outside the constitution. Harlan said, "This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place.")• "Section 802, Patriot Act". (Defining the People as terrorists. Defining terrorism as a maritime event. Excluding private meetings on the land from terrorism: "(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that—(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.") (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html)
Need I say more?
How to Sign up On-Line:
With all due respect, I stated my point very clearly, "to expose the invalidity of the facts upon which the Republic relies for its existence." At the end I challenged anyone to produce the historical facts that refute those I analyzed.
I am also honored that you chose to reply to my article. As I mentioned, none of the inner circle have chosen to respond. I consider you and the other state Republic leader who did respond previously to be honest believers in your cause. My wish is that you consider following my advice from the article about what you should do -- demand that your leaders make the defense, rather than relying on their recruits.
De Jure vs. De Facto
In order for the Republic to claim its de jure status, it must portray the existing governments (all of them) as de facto. You can look up these terms in on-line dictionaries or Black's Law Dictionary or any of the numerous on-line compendiums of legal terms.
The concepts of de jure and de facto are a little more complicated than I thought I could explain quickly in an already lengthy article, but I'll give it a try here. Literally, the terms mean "in law" and "in fact." De facto is a term that most adults have heard before; in its general sense, it simply means that something is, it's a fact. When used in juxtaposition to de jure, it takes on a much different sense. In that context, de facto means illegitimate and de jure means lawful. So, when the proponents of the narrative, all of the proponents, not just the Republic, use the term de facto to describe government, they are using it to define the government as illegitimate. De jure, in that context, means not only lawful, but also, suppressed or out of power, like a government in exile.
Consider, for example, the government of Cuba. The United States didn't recognize the Castro government in 1959 because it usurped power from the Batista government. Castro's government is de facto and the successor to Batista's government is de jure. Other governments in the world don't make a distinction, so in a real sense, the distinction is in the eye of the beholder. One may ask, what authority does an outsider like the United States have to make the distinction? Arguably, none. But the Cuban exiles themselves could certainly make the distinction, which they do.
In order to make its de jure argument, the proponents of the narrative must find a point in time at which a de facto government ousted a de jure government. In this context, both governments must exist at the same time and they can't be one and the same.
The key point in time that the narrative relies on is the 1871 act of Congress that reorganized the government for the District of Columbia. I asserted, and I believe proved, that the narrative simply leaps from the language of the act to an unsupported assertion using its own, made-up-out-of-thin-air, definition of the word organic.
In your response, I see no counter-argument to refute that analysis. In law, assertions which are not rebutted, are proven. Unless you bring new facts, not yet asserted in the narrative, to the table, it's unlikely that you can rebut the plain meaning of the word.
Without the 1871 act of Congress being interpreted as creating a de facto government, there can be no de jure government. Without a de jure government, there is nothing to re-inhabit. Without a government to re-inhabit, what is the Republic doing except leading you down a rabbit hole?
The Restore America Plan
You refer to it as the Reinhabit the Republic Plan. I refer to it by its original name, which is available for all to see on the way-back machine.
Who are those "high-ranking members of the military?" Inquiring minds want to know. The Republic is, ostensibly, counteracting a shadowy de facto government backed by foreign bankers. Are we really being asked to accept a new shadowy de jure government backed by military officers?
And here's where I think the Republic is coming apart at the seams as we speak. It is not simply out to restore a de jure government, it is also out to significantly change that government in the process -- with good intentions, no doubt.
The Federal government is a corporation. We agree. So what. It's always been a corporation, but it wasn't created by an 1871 act of Congress; it was created by the Constitution.
You go on with a lot of references. I don't dispute those references for their factual content with one exception (below). I do, however, dispute the alleged significance of those discrete facts when weaved into the whole cloth of the narrative. Like I stated in the article, there are a lot of facts. What the Republic is doing, however, relies on a singular fact that it alleges created a de facto government. With the de jure side of the dichotomy, the Republic is out on a limb with nothing to legitimize its activities.
Downes v. Bidwell
I'm glad you mentioned this case. I didn't want to address it in the article for length considerations. Let's now put this one to bed with a stake through its heart.
Downes v. Bidwell was a case about whether Congress could make any laws it wanted for the territory of Puerto Rico in contravention of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico was not a State of the United States and that the Constitution did not apply in the case of import duties on oranges from Puerto Rico. (It's always interesting to recognize the real nature of the dispute that was being decided. Downes didn't want to pay a tax on bringing his oranges from Puerto Rico to New York.)
The quotation you cite from Justice Harlan's dissent has been taken out of context. Even that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, does it, so I won't be too hard on you, but it's obvious you haven't read the whole quote in context, so here it is.
The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments -- one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U. S. 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. "To what purpose," Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 176, "are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 380-381 (1901)
You see how that pesky context gets in the way of the narrative? It's right there in the first sentence. Harlan is commenting on a belief of some people, even those who argued the case in front of the court, that Congress operates in two different ways -- one under the Constitution (for the States) and one above the Constitution (for the world at large).
Harlan is not buying it. In the second sentence and the rest of the paragraph, Harlan goes on to say that Congress cannot do whatever it wants, that the Congress is restricted by the Constitution and can't get around it whenever it wants.
Harlan didn't carry the day in Downes. The rest of the court found a way for Congress to impose the tax. It was a tax, after all. And without taxes who would pay the judges and their staffs their incredible salaries and benefits? The courts shouldn't get in the way of taxes (he says facetiously).
Clyde Cleveland, a former recruiter for the Republic, points out on this recruiting presentation that the Downes v. Bidwell statement is taken out of context. You can hear it in Clyde's own words on 5 of 8 Clyde Cleveland: Using Common Sense to Restore Our Republic (January 9, 2011) starting at the very beginning of the clip. But at two minutes in, it's clear that Clyde didn't read the statement either, because he doesn't explain the context of Congress acting on domestic matters versus foreign matters. But at least, Clyde warns about taking things out of context.
So the point here, just so you don't miss it, is this: The "two national governments" phrase from Harlan's dissent in Downes v. Bidwell is not talking about fact, it's talking about opinion of some people, and not the opinion of either Harlan or the court. That opinion is not even about a de facto and a de jure government, it's about Congress operating differently on domestic matters under the Constitution than on foreign matters outside the Constitution.
Need You Say More?
While you need not, I am certainly open to learn of historical facts, if they exist, that support the narrative of the Corp U.S. argument.
And while you may truly believe that a de jure government exists and that you are re-inhabiting it, others, especially those who are injured by adhering to your beliefs, might call it something else much more unpleasant.
So, on the three primary historical issues of fact addressed in the article, I see no rebuttal to any of them. Unrebutted, they are, therefore, proved.
Rather than tilting at windmills, I'm sure all of Freedom Force would welcome you to join us and take back the real centers of power. Local governments are just as out-of-control as the Congress. It just doesn't make the news because thousands or millions of dollars is not as glamorous as billions or trillions of dollars. Join us on Project City Hall.
I'm not a scholar of scripture, but it contains a lot of common sense adages, so I leave you with this final thought.
24 Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell -- and great was its fall!
Richard Michael is a common law advocate. He conducts teleconferences and presentations covering subjects related to sovereignty, common law, constitutions, case law, and government institutions, particularly with relation to grand juries, lawyers, judges, and voting. Richard also runs Grassroots PhoneBank™, a voter contact system, to help candidates win elections without breaking the bank. Patriot groups or individuals or candidates may contact Richard at (909)274-0813.