None but ourselves can free our minds…
We received an email with the following concern:
“Is emancipation from human to man or woman legal?
My colleague has told me of a case of someone who completed the process only to be charged with fraud and handed a 10 year jail sentence?
What are your thoughts?
I have a nunber of people on my group followings giftoftruth emancipation process and was unaware that it could be fraudulent.
I would appreciate your prompt response. “
Never lend your ears out to hearsay; don’t believe or trust what anyone out there says;
verify the facts for yourself;
it’s impossible to get into trouble for correcting your birthright status; it’s God-given;
if God gave you the right then they must file a charge against Him;
what a load of tripe; please ask whomever is spreading the hearsay to produce the case where this allegedly happened?
If, someone did indeed get arrested then it was most likely because he or she did in fact commit fraud and then perhaps tried to use the emancipation process to escape justice; but, fraud is fraud no matter which law you use; then it won’t work;
no, the legal beagles are terrified of emancipation; at worst they ignore you; they can never afford to open such a can of worms; they have a legal emancipation anyways – 21 is the coming of age and legally an emancipation from your parents; ours is the next level one from the state;
in fact, all government and court officials run when you start challenging their jurisdiction;
so, if there is such a case then someone must get the case number and uplift the files and get a copy of the court ruling to me; then we will take action; but, am very sure it is not true;
in peace, brother-thomas
Global Research, July 29, 2022
Latest Update July 23, 2022. First published on May 21, 2022
Author’s Note and Update
The WHO Declares a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
In recent developments, the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus went against the majority vote of the WHO expert committee (9 against 6 in favor): i.e. AGAINST the calling of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PEIC).
“We have an outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly through new modes of transmission,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing in Geneva on Saturday (July 23). “I have decided that the global monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.”
The evidence is scanty, the motivation is political.
The unspoken objective is to sustain the fear campaign.
According to Bloomberg, “The declaration from Tedros … underscores divisions within the organization over the severity of the threat. The pathogen typically causes flu-like symptoms, followed by a rash that often starts on the face and spreads down the belly. (Bloomberg)
Is Dr. Tedros in conflict of interest, going against a committee of medical doctors and scientists? The WHO is funded by the Gates Foundation. And Bill Gates is centrefold. He has been pushing for the monkeypox scenario since 2017. (see analysis below).
And guess what: it’s the Real Time PCR test which the CDC declared invalid for detecting SARS-CoV-2 (effective December 31 2021) which is now being used to “detect the monkeypox pathogen”.
The July 2021 CDC advisory pertaining to the failures of the RT-PCR test reads as follows:
“CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza”.
And now the CDC has put forth a procedure “used for the detection of Monkeypox virus DNA in clinical specimens by real-time PCR”:
“This [RT-PCR] assay detects DNA at varying concentrations, providing a qualitative result of either positive, negative, or inconclusive in the identification of Monkeypox virus infections.” (CDC)
If you test RT-PCR positive for Covid-19, it may be “mistakenly” tabulated as a “positive” Monkeypox virus infection.
Versatility of the RT-PCR test! Anything Goes. SARS-CoV-2, Influenza, MonkeyPox. It is also being applied to detect the “dangerous” Covid omicron variants and BA 4 and 5 sub-variants.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research July 23, 2022
Another Chapter of “Fake Science” is Unfolding
Say Goodbye to SARS-CoV-2, Say Hello to the Monkeypox Pathogen
Another episode of “General Electric Theater.”
By Nowick Gray
Global Research, July 26, 2022
Before embarking on a second career as a politician (governor of California, where he said, “If you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen them all”) and leader of the “free world” (US president 1980-88), Ronald Reagan was an actor, and host of the TV show General Electric Theater (1954-62). Each week he delivered the punch line of the show’s introduction, and the telling slogan of its corporate sponsor: “Progress is our most important product.”
Anyone listening to the pronouncements of Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF), its transhumanist disciple Yuval Harari, its Young Global Leaders in lockstep mouthing “Build Back Better,” or Bill Gates touting forced medical intervention for every body/soul on earth, will catch an echo of this fundamental mantra of our time. Indeed, the same ethos could be traced back to the biblical injunction for humans to have “dominion” over all the planet and its creatures.
In between, we’ve had the neolithic (tool-making) revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Information Age. Today we embark on the next frontier, where reality itself is digitized, replaced by its virtual facsimile, overwritten by a new, synthetic narrative. Welcome back to Story Time.
“The primary motivating factor of any such ideology is its utopian vision. It’s that nebulous vision of something better–the ideal future–that acts as an attractor for the hopes and thus actions of those under its spell. . . . The vagueness of the notion is its greatest strength–like a societal Rorschach test. The masses latch on to it as the means to end their anxiety, vent their aggression, and achieve the “justice” they feel they have been denied. The attractor is simple: a better world, otherwise undefined. The details don’t need to be clear, but the goal is noble, in their minds.” –Harrison Koehli, On the Fractal Nature of Conspiracy
On the receiving end, Mother Nature suffers all the abuse heaped on her by proud man and his tools, excuses, illusions, conquests, schemes and scams. All undertaken “for the greater good” of homo sapiens, exclusively. But is this vaunted progress and the riches it yields truly to the benefit of all humans concerned? Or has “a better life” been hijacked as an irresistible bandwagon, while the drivers prosper and the passengers pay?
This is not to dispute the value of tools for survival. Electric lighting, modern dentistry, the written word. . . but where does it end? Few question the train or its tracks, the engineer’s ulterior motives, the collateral damage along the way. The Green movement gives lip service to environmental ethics, but meanwhile gets captured by financial interests, skewed science, and an alternative industry with costs to nature that are hidden or ignored.
Taking heed of a rising ecological ethic, the technocrats at the top have put a new spin on a Greener future. Their solution is the simplest: reduce human population, by whatever means necessary. Self-appointed as the fittest to survive, they will remain on top, naturally.
“Being able to see the globalists’ plan as clearly as we can see it now, we have an obligation to future generations to resist, denounce and refuse any and all implementations of the technocratic agenda.” —Dr. Joseph Mercola
Where there is destruction and dishonesty, there is always pushback.
By Peter Koenig
Global Research, July 24, 2022
A record heatwave is hitting Europe, mostly Southern Europe and the British Island. Temperatures are reaching more than 40 degrees C. London measured an all-time record of more than 41 degrees C.
The heatwave, with ever-increasing temps, has been hitting Europe for several weeks now, and there seems to be no end in sight yet. Massive forest and brush fires are hitting particularly Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece – but also other parts of Europe.
According to news reports, more than a thousand people have already died in relation to the heat, most of them in Southern Europe. Precise statistics are apparently not available. Is this really possible? Or could it ALSO be deaths caused by the toxic and poisonous covid vaxxes?
The heat plus the fires is not only destroying human lives – and massive livestock! – and properties, but also vital crops through drought and now the fires. Food crops are ”vital” in a time when the mass media narrative 24/7 brainwashing the public at large with the woes of the Russian aggression on Ukraine, that is causing energy and food shortages in the west, particularly in Europe for most countries, and in the Global South.
This is the narrative we are hearing. This is the narrative most people still believe. And now, the food that could save us from famine, is being destroyed by extreme heat, drought and fires.
Are these fires the result of the heat, or could they be caused by an intentional and planned arson? At this juncture there is no evidence to that effect.
And as if it was a bad coincidence, in parallel with the heat wave, the Dutch Government under the leadership of Mark Rutte, a scholar of Klaus Schwab’s Academy for Young Global Leaders, under close surveillance of the WEF and its “Green Agenda” (coinciding with the US and the UN Green Agenda), is imposing on its farmers an up to 30% reduction of farmland and cattle farms – under the pretext that the cattle’s manure releasing these horrible climate change gases, Ammonia (NH3), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), will help accelerate “Climate Change”.
How ridiculous, criminally ridiculous, can it get and worse, if people believe it and play along. What started in the Netherlands, may soon come to a country near you.
Some 30% of farmers would not only lose their livelihoods, but are mandated to give up their land to the government for a pittance, so that the Government could use this prime farmland for “Green” purposes. Who knows, maybe Bill Gates will lease or buy it to produce insects and bugs for his new “green” insect burgers – and other disgusting replacements of one of humanity’s main and oldest staple food.
And, are we powerless against these monster powers?
For weeks hundreds of thousands of Dutch farmers and their supporters are taking to the streets and blocking highways to and from major Dutch cities, as well as main distribution arteries between Holland and Germany and within the Netherlands, disrupting food and other supply chain distribution schemes.
The Dutch farmers rebellion is now getting enforcement from Germany and Switzerland. They are marching with a “Wanted List” on placards of some of those considered as responsible for the crimes committed over the past two and a half years; crimes dictated by the Great Reset and the omni-powerful Financial Cult that manages the WEF. See this.
“The Minister of health plans to turn us into a Communist style dictatorship when he makes an emergency law part of the health act on August, 5th, 2022.
The Minister will have the power to declare a pandemic, force a lockdown and compel citizens to take a medication/vaccine at anytime without any consensus from the broader medical community. Anyone opposing the minister for violating your constitutional rights can be locked up for ten years or taken by force by the police into a camp to be given treatment without consent.
Please do your duty and raise your objections to this Draconian amendment. send your comments now to
We need 30 million submissions. DO THE RIGHT THING NOW!
You have a duty to protect our Constitution by sending your objections immediately.”
WATCH AND LEARN MORE HERE: Adv Sabelo Sibanda – THE TRUTH ABOUT COVID
By Anna Von Reitz
A few days ago, the Chinese Government seized all savings accounts in the country, by “redefining” the life savings of hundreds of millions of Chinese people as “investment products” belonging to the government.
This is what happens when the government rules you, instead of you ruling the government.
Then, the Vatican announced that it was ending all foreign investments and returning the assets to the Vatican Bank.
What do they know (or suspect) that you don’t know?
They know that the present Bull Market is a Pit Bull Market instead. The Vermin are “running up” the stock markets of the world by “self-investing”.
In other words, the corporations listed on the various exchanges, and the hedge funds, and even more importantly, all the pension and investments slush funds, are propping up the stock market by buying their own stocks, thus generating what appears to be demand for their shares and ever- increasing stock prices. This apparent profit-making opportunity lures naive and unwary investors into the market.
At a certain pre-arranged moment, the big banks and other major players will pull the plug and exit stage left, leaving the corporation shareholders and smaller investors and insurance companies to pick up the gargantuan losses.
Then, they, the ones that planned the disaster with malice aforethought, will come back in and buy up everything for nothing.
This is what they did in 1929, so it’s not exactly rocket science to see what they are doing again.
I wish it weren’t so, but…. there is no other reason in this world that already grossly overvalued stocks would be selling like hot cakes.
My guess is that the Chinese Government is bulking up its cash assets position to be ready to swoop in and buy everything in sight for pennies on the dollar after the crash. And the Vatican is simply taking its bat and ball and going home to sit out the extra innings.
If I had any stock market investments I would be pulling out now, taking my chits and going home just like the Vatican. And if I had a long term investment strategy, I would be paying off debts and bulking up my cash position with both gold and credit, just like China.
So what can you do? If you are in the stock market — get out. If you are a producer and have firm futures contracts you have to stay in and pray. And if you are like me, shaking your head, sit back and watch the show.
This is only possible because people don’t pay attention to history, don’t know about institutional investors, and don’t realize that Central Banks were created to manipulate commodities — including world currencies, which are commodities, too.
My guess for the Pull the Plug date is toward the end of the harvest cycle, so that all those food commodity futures contracts are exercised BEFORE the market goes kafluey. There’s a reason the 1929 Crash came in late October.
The Monsters pay off the Farmers in grossly inflated dollars and get to keep what’s important — the actual food commodities, which will predictably skyrocket in price.
You may have been wondering about the USDA’s policy of paying farmers not to produce crops and even actively going out and demanding after the fact that the farmers destroy their crops already planted (???) — well, wonder no more.
Food shortages mean guaranteed profits for the Rats. Thanks to this, food will be scarce and in many places, it will simply disappear into black markets. You will have to wear a trench coat and talk to Julio if you want to buy anything.
Water shortages planned for the Western United States means the same thing.
I think we should just cut to the chase and start paying visits to the CEO’s of all the banks and corporations right now, since the Secretary of the Army, Christopher Miller, isn’t doing his job and preventing this from happening.
What can we “little people” do to defend ourselves from this hideous evil on high?
You can’t go wrong stashing cartons of booze and cigarettes, though those can be seized by the government corporations using their “regulatory powers” over alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
But there are a surprising number of other things that become big ticket items in a crash. BIC lighters, sacks of charcoal, salt, spices, coffee, sterno, toothpaste, baking soda, soap, vinegar, MREs.,ammo, tools, tampons, packets of yeast, dry milk, all the little things of life that vanish in a crisis and which “your” government has done nothing to stockpile for you.
In fact, your actual “government” — which has been a foreign military junta in place since 1860, has done nothing but make it worse, deliberately, according to plan — to kill off as many Preferential Creditors as possible.
First, they deployed their “Uniformed Officers” —- all the doctors and nurses and dentists who have been illegally conscripted under Title 37 of the Federal Code — and yes, these medical professionals have been used to kill millions of innocent, trusting people who came to their hospitals for help, bought their “patent medicines”, and who took their vaccinations in good faith.
Now, they are going to crash the stock market and profit from all the death, destruction and chaos that entails.
Maybe it’s our own fault. That’s all we’ve trained these men to do — create death and destruction in order to make money off of it, both going and coming. I suppose it’s inevitable that they’d come back around full circle and trash us, too.
They are going to stand there in their uniforms dripping with medals, turn both palms upward to the sky, pretend that they, the U.S. Military, had nothing to do with this debacle (even though they have been in charge of it since 1863) and they are here to help….
Help themselves, that is.
While we are the topic of U.S. Military betrayals and lies, here’s another good one. Australia just announced that the Australian Defense Force will be merging with and will be under the command of the U.S. Military. They are just getting around to announcing what has been self-evident since 1902, if you look at the money going out of our pockets to pay the Australian Military to do the horrific things that have been done to the people of Australia. Expect the rest of the former Commonwealth and occupied nations of Europe and Japan to follow.
Why? Because we’ve been paying all their Defense Forces, too. For many decades. Which means that the U.S. Military has been de facto occupying all those countries, too.
And why are they creating this genocide in Australia? Because they already sold the mining resources and land mass to China. They have to make room for the new tenants.
LOL. And you wonder why there is any threat of attacks and reprisals and bad feelings overall? You are falling for all the Hope Porn about White Hats and Alliances?
No, no, no, children, the current events tell a far different tale, a tale in which the guilty U.S. Military is attempting to avoid detection of its role and paper over its responsibility for 95% of all the bad things that have happened in the past 161 years. The only truthful statement coming out of their mouths is that, yes, everything is under the control of the U.S. Military.
As you can see, that’s not exactly good news.
Increasingly, the storefront of politicians is wearing thin and we see our own dear Generals and Admirals — Americans all working for the Queen, not us, and being paid with our money by SERCO, INC., a British Quartermaster —- doing all this outrageous crap to tear the guts out of Australia and America and everywhere else, under color of law and authority that was never granted to them.
And their excuse? Ah, they are teaching us a lesson, rubbing our noses in it, so that these same mistakes can never be made again? Well, the actual mistake was when their corporation’s “President” Abraham Lincoln was elected under conditions of deceit, and it’s all been downhill since then.
Prepare for impact. Expect no help from the military and pray for no further harm. Now that their role as the puppet master and enforcer is fully exposed, it’s harder for them to pull their crap, but who knows? Maybe they will just come out of the closet, fangs bared, and admit that they — and the Brits, of course — have been at the bottom of every dog pile since 1860.
Batten the hatches, kids, and send what help you can to help us bring forward your cause and bring you relief. We are at least telling the truth and trying hard to introduce some shreds of honor and sanity into the worldwide discussion.
Anna Maria Riezinger
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
P.S. Amschel Rothschild got it wrong. It’s not who rules the gold, it’s who rules the guns that counts. Hang onto yours.
SAJurA Comment: it’s not guns that will rule the day; it will be bows and arrows; if this goes down all the bulllets will be used up within a month or two UNLESS you are far from the maddingcrowd… heaven help us; so, learn how to make traditional bows and arrows;
Global Research, July 19, 2022
The COVID-19 Lockdown Triggers Worldwide Poverty
Poverty and chronic undernourishment is a pre-existing condition.
First, there is a long term historical process of macroeconomic policy reform under IMF-World Bank auspices which has contributed to depressing the standard living Worldwide in both the developing and the developed countries.
Second, these preexisting historical conditions of mass poverty have been exacerbated and aggravated by the imposition of the Covid lockdown.
With large sectors of the World population already well below the poverty line prior to the March 2020 Covid-19 lockdown, the recent hikes in the prices of basic food staples are devastating.
Millions of people around the World are unable to purchase food for their survival. And this is by no means limited to the “developing countries”.
According to the ILO (2020 report), over two billion people representing 62 percent of the global labor force, are employed in the informal economy. This population group is impoverished beyond description, with “millions of people facing a growing risk of hunger”.
Earnings of informal sector workers are estimated to have declined by 82 percent as a result of the covid lockdown, “with Africa and Latin America to face the largest decline.” (ILO data quoted by (FAO, p. 6).
The FAO’s July 2020 report points to 27 countries facing so-called “acute food insecurity”.
Read the rest at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/benefits-world-hunger/5786182
By Anna Von Reitz
What if a credit card hacker stole your identity and charged a lot of expensive items to your credit card? Would you be obligated to pay for his charges? No.
What if a thief impersonated you, ordered a bunch of supplies for their business on a 30-Day Net Agreement, had the supplies shipped to a warehouse, and then shipped them to Mexico —- skipping town without paying for them. Would you be responsible for this? No.
What if a foreign government said it was involved in salvaging a bankrupt corporation’s assets and charged you a whole bunch of money for service fees and materials to do this “salvage work” when you were never a franchise or shareholder of that corporation? Would you owe any of its debts? No.
These are all examples of “odious debt” — which is strictly defined as dishonest debt and charges related to some kind of scam or fraud scheme from which the victim does not benefit.
In the present situation, the operators of both the US, INC. and the USA, Inc. have profited themselves tremendously at the expense of Americans who have been impersonated as the shareholders and franchises of these corporations— without the nicety of a single dividend check—- and who have had all the expenses of these faceless operators dumped on them with no compensation and no knowledge of what was being done “in their names” at all.
At least $88 Trillion dollars worth of such Odious Debt has been heaped on the American DEBT SLAVES and there is little wonder that some people are staring at this humongous manure pile and talking about “Debt Default” — just telling the rest of the world, sorry, it’s all our fault and we can’t pay, boo-hoo, boo-hoo — which would leave the creditors of the US, INC. and the USA, Inc. free to come in here and take everything as compensation.
No, no, no. What needs to happen is for everyone to wake up and realize that– Number One, no “National Debt” exists, because our equal and answering “National Credit” hasn’t been applied. The books haven’t been balanced. No debt actually exists. By definition.
And Number Two, from our perspective, if any debt remains after National Credit is applied, it’s an Odious Debt having nothing to do with us or our assets. The debt was accrued by foreign commercial corporations hypothecating debt against us while engaged in unauthorized salvage operations on our shores. They used a double-ended impersonation scheme to accomplish this which makes it fraud from the get-go, and so, no, we don’t owe any “National Debt” and any debt that does exist, is Odious Debt associated with foreign commercial corporations. Not us.
One other thing is certain — though we may benefit from the existence of these two foreign corporations in certain respects, we are not the intended beneficiaries of these corporations and we do not receive any juicy corporate dividends or debentures or annuities or any unearned welfare benefits. We are not the owners of these foreign corporations and we are not the owners of any corporation or business or ship that these corporations have legitimately salvaged at any time.
So, no, children, we don’t need to default on a debt that isn’t ours, but the Queen, the Pope, and the Lord Mayor of the Inner City of London, all the British Crown Corporations and all the Municipal Corporations need to pay up for what they have leveraged, squandered, and hypothecated in our names.
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
By Anna Von Reitz
Yesterday, I described for everyone how the remaining four “subject matters” of the Admiralty Courts have been used to illegally and immorally come ashore and hypothecate debt against the hapless landlubbers who never needed nor asked for nor authorized any such assistance from Her Majesty’s Navy.
Some people immediately called me names and started pooh-poohing and saying, “Oh, that couldn’t be possible!”
So I went spelunking this morning, and here it is in black-and-white, the British law that Her Majesty’s Government and the Lords of the Admiralty have been employing to do their dirty work the entire time: The Naval Agency and Distribution Act of 1864.
The same pretenses of “needful assistance” have been used to commandeer America, Australia, Canada, and all the other old Commonwealth nations, in exactly the manner I have described for you in the past.
In America, the Bounders used the excuse that we were in need of their assistance on an “emergency basis” following the Civil War — and so, came ashore and started operating Admiralty Courts on the Land and “hypothecating” debt for this “service”.
In the rest of the world, it has been a hodge-podge of excuses.
The old Commonwealth countries were purportedly given their freedom to form new and independent governments, but the people were never given full disclosure nor any assistance to transition out of the Commonwealth Government to any new system of their choosing. After a period of years, the Queen’s Territorial (Military) Government came back in, using the excuse that no new government had been formed and they were taking charge in the interim.
In occupied Europe, they used the excuse that they were part of an occupation force engaged in peacekeeping and have simply outstayed their welcome and any viable excuse for being encamped in other nations and running their business “for” them.
It’s all British Bunko and it’s all been engineered by their endlessly corrupt Admiralty functions.
Even the $950 Trillion Dollars worth of “Life Force Value Annuities” that Prince Philip purloined is nothing but Bottomry Bonds by a different name.
Oh, and please note, that the “Agent” for all this is the “Secretary of State”.
Now, some people have asked — “How could you possibly come up with this information that fast? You only released the information about the Admiralty being implicated yesterday! Were you holding back?”
Nothing like that.
I simply knew that there had to be a kickback system involved to get people to go along with this and I knew that when large numbers of people are involved and it has quasi-naval overtones, the proper word for such a rewards system is “bounty”.
So I started by looking up the word “bounty” in various legal dictionaries and compendiums like American Jurisprudence and that then brought up a list of related British and American laws, and then….. I looked at the one that happened to be enacted in 1864, just in time for all their Breach of Trust and Malfeasance here in America.
And there it was. The Naval Agency and Distribution Act of 1864, improperly and unjustifiably being “brought ashore” on our land and soil, together with their filthy Admiralty Courts disguised as (Military) District Courts.
They have been operating under Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the “Rebels” — strictly defined as armed insurrectionists in the Southern States and Municipal citizens of the United States — ever since, but, of course, they expanded their self-interested mercenary witch-hunt to include everyone, Allies and Enemies alike. Any American would do.
And they have prosecuted innocent people for six generations under False Legal Presumptions including the False Presumption of War.
They’ve done the same in the “former” (Ahem!) Commonwealth since the 1980s and the same in Hong Kong since the 1930’s and the same in Occupied Europe and Japan since the 1940’s.
So, now, Campers, what are we going to do about it? Shall we “fully inform” all their Secretaries of State that their services are no longer needed? Shall we apply economic sanctions against the Queen’s Government? Shall we repudiate all their False Claims in Commerce? Their bankruptcies? Their assumed contracts? Their hypothecation of debt against us and our birthright estates?
Shall we hold them —-and the Popes who also sat mum and benefited themselves—- accountable?
What punishment would be appropriate, besides letting the entire world know what venal, greedy, immoral little scumbags they really are?
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
Is a social credit system about to be implemented worldwide? Are people already divided into different classes? We have received detailed information directly from whistleblowers working on the software. ▹
Frank Jacob joins us for a 7th INSPIRED conversation as we present groundbreaking information about the elite’s social credit system.
By Sidney Secular|July 16th, 2022
By Sidney Secular
July 16, 2022
World food production is projected to decline precipitously in 2022. The wheat harvest alone is expected to drop by 10 million metric tons from last year while other grains and food staples are in similar dire straits. A record 45 million people are on the brink of starvation and a further 800 million lack a reliable source of daily food. Farmers in the world’s leading farm belts outside of Russia and the Ukraine as well as the US, Canada, Europe and India are being forced to protest simply for the right to produce this much needed food. Earlier in 2022 there were reports that American farmers would be offered subsidies if they destroyed their crops and farmers in the Netherlands are now blocking streets in protest over the situation as have farmers in Germany for the past 3 years.
Read the rest here:
By Monique Terrazas
May 2013 – SA Real Estate Investor – Money grows on trees
(This post is old but just as valid today until we End the Fed, which is a non-permanent non-banking debt system, and move to an alternative permanent value-backed real money and real banking system.)
The banking and Financial system globally is under scrutiny as scandal after scandal rocks what we had always assumed was a trustworthy industry, solid as rock. But things have changed. There is little doubt that the irresponsible practice of securitization and inter-bank lending brought about the global credit crunch. After setting in motion the subprime crisis that dumped the global economy into the worst recession in living memory, banks were exposed for manipulating the Libor and Euribor interbank interest rates- providing false figures on key interest rates upon which mortgages and loans are priced – affecting millions of families and hundreds of thousands of companies, large and small, across the globe. As one commentator noted: “This dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financials cam in the history of the markets. In addition, the information age has brought to the man in the street the knowledge that “money” is no longer backed by gold reserves, but fabricated through the fractional reserve banking system. Given how pervasive the financial system is – affecting every aspect of our lives – it has become critical that we move out of our comfort zone where ignorance was bliss. We need to become far more proactive and involved, understanding thoroughly how the system works. This is the only way in which we can shift from being victims of a system we have helped to create through ignorance, complacency and greed, to becoming empowered consumers and users of these systems, understanding the rules so we can play the game or step outside the game for our own collective best interests, and the interests of generations to come.
Understanding the rules
We cannot play on an equal footing in the global financial system if we don’t understand the rules. While learning the rules requires time, effort and dedication, it is absolutely necessary if we are to become empowered players, instead of victims. It is not possible to explain the intricacies of the entire global financial system in one article, but there are a few concepts that, once understood, will help us to understand the basic tenets of the system, notably the fractional reserve banking system and securitization.
The fractional reserve system
In previous articles in REIM, we revealed that banks do not actually lend out money they already possess, but rather “create” the money loaned to borrowers, using the “promise to pay” signed by the borrower. In other words, “money” is created through debt. This is called a ‘fractional reserve’ banking system, and it is used by governments, central banks and financial institutions across the globe. On a national scale, central banks print money that has no intrinsic value, based on a “promise to pay” issued by a government. Because this new “money” has no intrinsic value, it derives its value by literally taking value from the money already in circulation, and this is what is called “inflation”. The money already in circulation is worth ever less to give value to new money that is printed. This practice was taken to extreme in Zimbabwe not so long ago, when the government’s practice of simply printing more money at a rate well in excess of economic growth, sent inflation to levels above 1 000%, rendering the money already in circulation worthless. Of course, today, they do not really actually “print” more money, but simply “create” the money through a “deposit entry”, even though no deposit was made by anyone! The same happens when a borrower approaches a bank for a loan. The bank does not actually have the money it “loans” to the borrower. They simply “create” money, through similar electronic “deposit entries” or “book entries”, simply based on a borrower’s “promise to pay”, with no actual deposit being made by anyone, anywhere. This raises a number of issues, including the legal validity of a “loan” and the legality and the morality of charging interest on such a “loan”. It has been contested in a number of court cases that a “loan” agreement cannot exist legally under these circumstances, because the bank did not “lend” something they had prior title, ownership and rights to. The “money” lent to the borrower did not exist before the borrower signed the all-important “promise to pay”, but was “created” based on the borrower’s “promise to pay”. How can a loan agreement exist when nothing was loaned? This, furthermore, raises issues around the charging of interest. How can the bank charge interest on a “loan” that is not legally valid? If the “money” loaned is “created” out of nothing more than a “promise to pay” – which belongs to the borrower – and the bank does not loan its own money to the borrower, why is interest charged by the bank? “A management fee payable to the bank for managing the system seems more appropriate,” comments Robert Vivian, Professor of Finance and Insurance at the School of Economic and Business Sciences at the University of the Witwatersrand.
Another hot topic over the last few years is the practice of securitization. Banks securitize loans by bundling them together, using a special purpose vehicle (SPV), and selling them to third party investors, who trade them on the capital markets. For example, in the home loan market, the borrowers’ promissory notes are backed by collateral through the mortgage contraction the property. As such, these become “mortgage-backed securities”. The bank approaches another institution that buys and sells mortgage-backed securities. It “sells” the buyer’s mortgage-backed security to this institution for the full amount – the principal and interest – payable by the buyer over the period of the mortgage loan. This is up to three times the amount of the principal debt. Since the bank is paid in advance, it makes a tidy profit without using or risking its own money. However, legally, once a bank securitizes a loan, it loses all rights to it – i.e. the bank is no longer the owner of the debt. Should the borrowers default on their loans, the debt to the SPV and its investors are covered by insurance policies, called “credit default swaps” in the US and other countries. While the use of this insurance has not been confirmed in South Africa, it stands to reason, according to legal experts, that an SPV trading on a stock exchange would be required to have this insurance in place. The South African Securitization Forum has confirmed that the implication of this is that the bank cannot, for example, repossess
the property if the borrower defaults on repayments, because the bank no longer has any rights to the property that is the collateral for a “loan” which has been securitized and now belongs to another entity. Quite simply, there can be no legal case against the defaulting borrower, because all parties have been settled. The bank was settled when the mortgage-backed security was sold, and the investors were settled through an insurance policy. Several recent court rulings in a number of states in the US have, essentially, declared the practice of securitizing home loans illegal, and as a result numerous banks have stopped foreclosure procedures on home-owners who have defaulted on their mortgage repayments. The implications are staggering: four million people in the US have had their homes repossessed illegally and the banks have been forced to pay out $8.5 billion in settlements.
“How can a loan agreement exist when nothing was loaned? And how can the bank charge interest on a “loan” that is not legally valid? ”
The situation in South Africa
How do these practices in the global financial system impact South Africa? South Africa has one of the most advanced financial systems in the world, which is why we survived the global economic crisis better than most developed countries. But this does not mean there is nothing to be concerned about. The fractional reserve system is used extensively in South Africa.
According to Russell Lamberti, writing on Mises.co.za/blog, the blog of the Mises Institute South Africa (www.mises.co.za): “Since 2000 the SARB [South African Reserve Bank] probably printed about R100 billion out of thin air. This allowed the commercial banks to use about R40 billion to fractionally leverage at about 40:1 and create about R1.6trillion in additional money out of thin air (that’s R1,600,000,000,000).” This means that South Africa has quadrupled its money supply in the last decade and, of course, the value of this new money must be derived from the money in circulation, creating inflation.
He adds that: “Since 2000, the US Fed balance sheet grew 370%. Over the same time the SARB balance sheet increased from R76bn to R440bn, about 480%. In other words, since 2000 the SARB balance sheet has grown 1.3 times more than the Fed balance sheet.” The fractional reserve system is also used by our banks to “create” money based on the borrowers’ “promises to pay”, which raises the issues of the legal validity of the loans and legality and morality of charging interest when “nothing” was loaned, because the money “loaned” did not belong to the bank, but was “created” ex nihilo (out of nothing) based solely the borrower’s “promise to pay”.
The Banks Act states that a bank cannot act as an agent or intermediary for a third party, such as a securitization SPV, without the express written consent of the customer. However, according to the South African Banking Association’s website, local banks securitize loans worth about R30 billion a month. The issue here is that is a bank securitizes a loan, it loses all rights to the asset. Tis means the bank cannot, for example, repossess property put up as collateral on a loan which has been securitized, because the bank no longer has any rights to the debt. It could well mean that thousands of homes may have been illegally repossessed by banks in South Africa too. The issue has already been tested in court, and on a number of occasions, it has resulted in a bank abandoning the foreclosure proceedings, because it was no longer the lawful owner of the debt. These practices are also being challenged in the High Court by New ERA (New Economic Rights Alliance), a non-profit organization supported by 150 000 people, which argues that if a loan has been securitized, not only has the borrower’s legal status with the bank changed, but the debt with the bank no longer exists. Their case is supported by extensive evidence and research with specific reference to South African economics and South African law and presented by lawyers acting pro-bono. The banks have emphatically argued that they cannot understand New ERA’s papers and the court ruled that New ERA must amend its papers, “removing all the evidence”. New ERA has said it will file amended documents with renewed ferocity, “to protect millions of South Africans from what we believe are blatant and unscrupulous actions of the banks.”
Follow the case on http://www.newera.org.za. REIM asked the banks and the major role players the following questions about securitization.
1. Can you provide us with an indication of the value of loans securitized and what percentage of these loans are home loans?
2. Does a consumer have the right to know if their loan has been securitized? Or is there a clause in the credit agreement that the client signs that provides the bank with the rights to securitize the loan? If so, can you provide a sample of the wording used? If not, how is the client informed?
3. Can a consumer choose not to have their loan securitized?
4. How can a consumer trace the securitization of his/her loan?
5. How do the banks ensure compliance with the legislation that credit agreements that have been sold or traded are registered with the NCR?
6. How is the legal standing of a South African citizen’s loan affected if the loan has been securitized?
7. How would the debt counseling process be affected by securitization?
The Banking Association of South Africa did not bother to acknowledge or respond to numerous emailed requests for information. The National Credit Regulator (NCR) –legally mandated to protect the interests of South African credit consumers – replied: “The NCR views this matter in an extremely serious light and is giving it the requisite attention. For fear of compromising the project the NCR is not at liberty to discuss any details at this stage”. Frightening. Especially given the fact that the National Credit Act, Sec 69(4) requires that all credit agreements that have been sold or traded(i.e. securitized) are to be registered with the National Credit Regulator.
“If the ownership of the debt shifts, it could mean the banks have no legal status over the debt, because they do not own the debt.”
Humbulani Salani, spokesperson for FNB Legal, simply responded: “We can confirm that currently FNB does not have any home loan securitization outstanding in the market. When securitization transactions were entered into by FNB in the past, it did not breach any law. Securitization is an industry matter. Steven Barker, Standard Bank’s Head of Home Loans, replied: “Only a small portion of Standard Bank’s Home Loans form part of a securitization arrangement. The customer agrees up front that the bank may cede its rights and delegate its obligations under any loan agreement to a third party. Where a loan is securitized there is generally a cession of the rights under the mortgage bond registered at the Deeds Office. The terms and conditions of the loan agreement are not affected by the securitization and a customer is required to repay the loan as set out in the loan agreement. The debt counseling process and any rights under the National Credit Act is not impacted. Further, Standard Bank complies with its reporting requirements under the Act.”
Absa noted that, currently, their total residential mortgage book amounts to approximately R233bn and only about 2% of this has been securitized. “Worth mentioning is that the performance of South African residential mortgaged backed securitization transactions have been superior to those in the US over the last 10 years. This is primarily due to South Africa’s very well-regulated securitization market where transactions are monitored by the SARB, the JSE, international rating agencies and the NCR. Fitch Ratings recently released a report confirming that EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) residential mortgaged backed securitization transactions (from 2000to 2011) had significantly lower losses than their US counterparts.” With regard to the questions about the consumer’s rights, Absa stated the following: “The customer will receive a letter from Absa to advise the customer [in the event] of the securitization of the loan and thereafter the credit provider’s details are reflected in all communications to the customer. Usually there is an express provision for a credit provider to transfer its rights and obligations. It should be noted that a credit provider has a common law right to transfer rights without consent. The NCA did not remove this right.”
Furthermore, Absa notes that “The consumer remains indebted under the loan, albeit to a different creditor and, save for this the terms and conditions of the loan do not change. The debt counseling process is not affected by securitization and the consumer is still entitled to exercise the rights he/she has in terms of the National Credit Act. ”Deborah Solomon, founder of the DCI, the debt counseling industry portal that has become the springboard to better debt management for thousands of overly indebted consumers, offered a different view. “The NCR is aware of the process called ‘securitization’ and have stated that they are investigating how this fits into the National Credit Act.
We have also brought the matter of securitization to Minister Rob Davies’ attention and will hopefully get some answers from the Minister’s office. We have also requested further information from the NCR regarding the compliance of the banks in terms of registering credit agreements that have been sold or traded with the NCR, but nothing has been forthcoming as yet. In terms of the NCA, the banks must give the debt counselors information as per their request. But the banks all have one ‘template answer’ and obviously feel that they do not have to answer these types of questions. It is another point which we have raised both with the NCR and with the Minister,” says Solomon.
She notes that from a debt counselor’s perspective, securitization has huge implications, as the counselor needs to know who the debt belongs to, to ensure negotiations and payments. “If we do not know who the real owner of the debt is, how can we make a judgment call on the outstanding ownership of the debt?” In terms of the effect of securitization on the debt counseling process, Solomon says that it could mean that a credit agreement is illegal. “If the ownership of the debt shifts, it could mean the banks have no legal status over the debt, because they do not own the debt.
The new holder or owner of the debt would also need to be a registered credit provider in terms of the NCA. Of course, a debt counselor would look at the debt differently if they knew it was securitized and would question the legality of the action on behalf of the consumer.” Solomon further notes that consumers absolutely have the right to know if their loan has been securitized. “If the bank has securitized a debt, made money from your signature without your consent or knowledge, and then try to take legal action against you should you default on the loan, it is 100% your right as a consumer to know this. Maybe this could be the reason why the banks have not embraced the NCA or tried to window dress the debt counseling process, because they know that should the truth be revealed, they could stand to lose more than what they are currently worth.”
Anyone who has ever had a Bank loan or, is about to apply for one, really must read “The Banker And The Attorney” story…
The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker’s education and background.
The attorney asked the banker, “What is court exhibit A?”
The banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”
The attorney then asked, “Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?”
The banker responded by saying, “Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower.“
The attorney asked, “What do you believe the agreement is?”
The banker quickly responded, saying, “We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check.”
The attorney asked, “Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?”
The banker responded by saying, “Sure it does.”
The attorney asked, `”According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?”
The banker responded by saying, “The lender loaned the borrower a $200,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money.“
The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. She asked, “Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?”
The banker said, “Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money.”
The attorney asked, “Does the $200,000 note have actual cash value of $200,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $200,000 cash in the ordinary course of business.”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfil the agreement and legally own the promissory note?”
The banker said, “$200,000.“
The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $200,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?”
The banker said, “The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house.“
The attorney asked, “Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $200,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $200,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $200,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned.”
The attorney asked, “If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?”
The banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions.”
The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $200,000 bank loan, the bank receives $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $200,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?”
The banker said, “I do not know the bookkeeping entries.”
The attorney said, “I am asking you if this is the policy.”
The banker responded, “I do not recall.”
The attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which is used to fund a $200,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?”
The banker said, “I am not a lawyer.”
The attorney said, “Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the banker. He said, “Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorisation or permission for the bank to receive $200,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $200,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $200,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “No.”
The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which the bank used to fund the $200,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $200,000 to the borrower?”
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $200,000 to the bank and the bank returns $200,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $200,000 for $200,000.”
The banker replied, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of
$200,000 swapped for $200,000, or did it call for a $200,000 loan?”
The banker said, “A $200,000 loan.”
The attorney asked, “Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans.”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?” The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked “Exhibit C”.
The banker said, “The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower.”
The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap or exchange of $200,000
The banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.”
The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $200,000 actual cash value for $200,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?”
The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
[The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” tinyurl.com/ntusype]
The attorney asked, “If the bank’s deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank’s assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is there any exception?”
The banker said, “Not that I know of.”
The attorney asked, “If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank’s books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?”
The banker thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?”
The banker said “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?”
The banker said, “Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way.”
The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?”
The banker said, “Nothing.”
The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?”
The banker said, “$200,000.“
The attorney said, “Is it true you received $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $200,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?”
The banker said, “I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan.”
The attorney asked, “Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower’s knowledge or written permission or authorisation?”
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney asked, “To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorisation for the bank to transfer $200,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?
The banker said, “No.”
The attorney said, “Does this allow the bank to use this $200,000 actual cash value to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $200,000 plus interest?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?”
The banker said, “No.” He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?”
The banker answered, “No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable.”
The attorney asked, “If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?”
The banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?”
The banker replied “Yes“.
The attorney said, “You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank’s property?”
“No. No tax is paid.”, said the crying banker.
The attorney asked, “When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money?”
The banker said, “Yes.”
The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors’ money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $200,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”
The banker, In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, “All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this.”
The attorney quickly responded, “Does Congress allow the banks
to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorisation, and without the alleged borrower’s knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?”
The banker said, “But the borrower got a check and the house.”
The attorney said, “Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower
The banker, “It is true“, said the banker.
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank’s property, which they loan out as bank loans?”
The banker, showing a wince of regret that he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.“
The attorney asked, “Do you believe that it was the borrower’s intent to fund his own bank loan check?”
The banker answered, “I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower’s mind.”
The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?”
The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, “If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.”
The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?”
The banker said, “The bank returns the funds.”
The attorney asked, “Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?”
The banker said, “As a loan.“
The attorney asked, “How did the bank get the borrower’s money for free?”
The banker said, “That is how it works.“
. . . And so it is!
CONCLUSION: See Drop-box: tinyurl.com/k2ta9fp
ps; YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_If31KLDKA#t=257
By Anna Von Reitz
This morning I got a British historical diatribe in my “inbox” together with a request that I make a reply. For example, the writer claims that Pope Innocent “annulled” The Magna Carta, quite ignoring the fact that Pope Innocent had no such power to annul the words and acts of the Norman kings of Britain who held the land by conquest and force of arms, and who enforced The Magna Carta with no blessing from Pope Innocent required, for a thousand years and beyond.
The same writer would probably also claim that The War of Independence never happened or had no effect, and that the British King still has a right to rule here — when in fact the British were very soundly beaten and the King himself fully admitted that our land and soil were ours and that we are free men in possession of our sovereignty and guaranteed our republican form of government.
No, indeed, there has never been a quibble from the British Government or the Government of Westminster claiming to own an iota of The United States or The United States of America ever since The War of 1812. What they do claim to own and control is their version of “the” United States (Trading Company) and their version of “the” United States of America (Trading Company).
And we won’t quibble about that, because they’ve made a terrible lot of bad business decisions —as is typical of their entire history — and both their now-incorporated businesses formerly doing business as “the” United States, Incorporated, and “the” United States of America, Incorporated, are bankrupt.
One of the key bits of historical knowledge that British pundits are either unaware of, or choose to ignore, is that the Treaty of Paris 1783, like a all things dubbed “Treaty of Paris” in any other year, is a sea treaty, having nothing to do with land or soil ownership, and only concerning the business affairs of a commercial company interest in “the” United States of America (Trading Company).
This version of “United States of America” was the British owned portion of the original investment and trading company of the same name which existed before The War of Independence. The original United States of America (Trading Company) broke into two parts as a result of the war — creating one British-owned “United States of America” (Trading Company) and one American-owned “United States of America” (Trading Company.)
The same thing happened with “the” United States (Trading Company) which similarly broke apart as a result of the war into British and American components.
The confusion that this has caused over the last two centuries can hardly be estimated, but when British apologists say that the Crown Temple owns and controls “the” United States or “the” United States of America, either one, this is what they are talking about.
Our American version, The United States of America (Trading Company) never incorporated, and is still alive and well, as is The United States (Trading Company).
Wouldn’t it have been helpful, if they had bothered to add “Trading Company” or later, “Incorporated” to the names, so people could see what they were talking about?
And know that they were discussing the business affairs of four business entities, two British and two American, operating under very similar names?
The only difference is that following The War of Independence, the American versions started using the names “The United States” and “The United States of America”, while the Brits used “the” United States and “the” United States of America.
We contracted with the British version calling itself “the” United States of America to provide us with certain enumerated services and delegated the power to provide those services to them when we adopted “The Constitution of the United States of America” — see it now? We were contracting for services from the British Trading Company, which, much later, incorporated as a franchise of the British Crown Corporation.
So that is what British writers are talking about when they claim that the Crown (British Crown Corporation) owns and controls “the” United States (now a bankrupt governmental services provider) or says that it owns and controls “the” United States of America (now another bankrupt governmental services provider).
It doesn’t mean that our country is bankrupt. Sovereign entities can’t go bankrupt, and aren’t eligible for bankruptcy protection, so you can be sure that our States of the Union are not bankrupt by definition, and our unincorporated American versions of The United States and The United States of America aren’t bankrupt, either.
These bankruptcies involve the British Service Providers only, both of which are franchises of the British Crown Corporation, which the BCC has run into the ground while embezzling from the American People using a sophisticated personage and barratry scheme. The only silver lining to that cloud is that we have become their Preferential Creditors as a result and own every scrap of everything they ever claimed to own.
These are the facts and this is what happened — and while the British writers are correct in saying that the Crown owns and operates “the” United States and “the” United States of America — two British commercial corporations dba “the United States, Incorporated” and “the United States of America, Incorporated” —- the only inconvenience that presents for us, the Americans, who are their Preferential Creditors, is gearing up and providing our own services.
Beyond that, I would say that there is a common British misconception that rights come from Constitutions or are granted by the Queen or dictated by the British Crown Corporation —- none of which is true. Rights come to us from the hand of God, from Nature itself, and they are not the result of anyone’s devising. Rather than creating any rights, Constitutions are meant to safeguard them by limiting the powers assumed by governments and by providing written guarantees that those governments will not Trespass on the rights and prerogatives of their employers.
In the present case, the Rotters have sought to evade their constitutional obligations by secretively “redefining” their employers as employees, but that won’t stand the light of day, either.
Lastly, I would observe that there has always been an element of flim-flam in what the Temple Bar proposes to do, which is to “represent” the actual physical world on paper, and try to use rules and procedures and definitions to control these papers. It’s like creating a map of Georgia and pointing at it and saying that you “own” Georgia, when in fact, you own a map of Georgia.
That’s what these fellows are engaged in, and in my opinion, it’s delusional.
Public Records establishing claims to land and homes are certainly more durable and reproducible than grocery receipts, but if you think of it, they do the exact same thing: they prove — if they are correct — that you paid for something. The salient question always is — what did you pay for?
Broccoli, lettuce, dog food? Land, a land patent, or a land title?
Disturbingly, most people in this country (and elsewhere) own a land title and think that they own the land described by that title, but instead, by analogy, they only own a map of Georgia provided by the Temple Bar.
That’s why, as Fiduciary for The United States of America, I stepped forward and claimed all the United States Land Patents and cadastral surveys and copyrighted titles to land that have been created to “describe” our land and soil assets. I claimed them for The United States of America and I rolled them into my own trust as the Secured Party Creditor of all these corporations, and I published my Irrevocable Will granting every American the return of their portion of land and soil assets.
This had to be done to put a stop on the British Flim-Flam described above.
As an example — the British Crown Subcontractors literally paid people to wander around this country and make up fictitious land descriptions in a dazzling array of categories and organizational systems and all of them are “maps of Georgia” in one way or another.
We have Plat Maps and cadastral surveys, we have Townships and Sections, we have Lots and Blocks, we have Subdivisions, and then, we have Land Patents, and last, we have (mostly false) claims of “real estate” and “real estate descriptions” that include various copyrighted names and number systems, like “256 Sunnybrook Lane”.
Imagine the horror of an American “home owner” who discovers that he bought a tenant interest in a property that had already been mortgaged to the hilt by the Queen’s Government —even though they never had any rightful claim or ownership interest in the property — and even after he pays off all the Queen’s debts, he will still only hold a tenant’s interest in a “future lease purchase agreement”? And all he’s really got in “equitable exchange” for all his time, labor, love invested in his home, is ownership of a copyrighted title describing his house and land.
What if I decide to call his house and land “999 Horrorstruck House” and copyright that new “land description”? Will I then be the new owner of his house? You see how this works and where it leads.
Someone shows up and looks over the fence at your house and land, and they arbitrarily decide to call it, “40193 Happy Valley Lane” and they then match this description to a map description and they copyright this and claim to own your house and land based on their copyrighted description of it.
That’s what a “land title” is — someone else’s arbitrary description of your land, which they’ve copyrighted.
Anyone smell the manure under British boots yet?
Well, they may own their copyrighted description of your land, but they don’t own your land. The United States of America owns your land and your Fiduciary locked it in her trust and published her Irrevocable Will to make sure that everything ever used to “describe” your land is yours. All you have to do is come home and claim it.
Meanwhile, in reading the British screeds everyone is well-advised to take a jaundiced view. For example, when they claim that The Declaration of Independence is invalidated because it was signed by five “Esquires” of the Crown Temple — no, that’s not what it means at all.
There were actually three (3) Declarations of Independence published on the Fourth of July in 1776, and the Esquires signed as representatives of the International Jurisdiction of the Sea, just as members of the clergy signed as representatives of the Global Jurisdiction of the Air. This country declared its independence in all jurisdictions— air, land, and sea, and American representatives of each jurisdiction signed the documents in full agreement.
A final example, “all constitutional rights are dictated by the Crown Temple” — ??? No, there are no “constitutional rights” —that is, no “rights” conferred by any Constitution. There are only constitutional guarantees and those are not dictated by the Crown Temple. Those are dictated by the stipulations of the contract itself.
Take no wooden nickels. Never accept anything Brits say as gospel. And if you find yourself facing a dogpile, just stir it around a bit, and you will find the Brits at the bottom of it. Between their BS, omissions, and half-truths, you will eventually find the truth if you roll up your sleeves and look for it.
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
Comment: much the same has been done with South Africa and along a similar timeline; it’s time to wake up to over 500 years of colonial frauds and continued modern day debt slavery;
By Anna Von Reitz
Yes, it’s true that if you are an American, you don’t need a Driver’s License to travel on our public roads. That’s the way it is, and the way it has always been. The recent flurry of excitement over the U.S. Supreme Court’s put down of Administrative “Law” in Virginia v EPA misses the whole point.
We, Americans, have never needed a license to travel around this country. Ever. That was decided over a century ago.
Since the 1890’s and early 1900’s, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court and by multiple County, State, and Circuit Courts, always with the same result, which is nicely summed up by Jeffrey Phillips in this compendium of cases proving this point beyond any possible doubt:
I am reposting his information for your convenience (below) so that you can literally see for yourselves how conclusively the issue of “needing or not needing a driver’s license” has been decided. This is by no means the first such compendium of actual court decisions in support of our freedom to travel and to use the public roads for private purposes without licenses. Americans need no “permits” to go wherever we want to go without obstruction or interference from private law enforcement officers aka “patrolmen” arresting and detaining people over “code infractions” that don’t apply to the General Public — and never did.
This is the absolute truth of the matter. The only question is — are you an American? A member of the General Public? And are you using the roads for private, non-commercial purposes?
Our law is simple. If you haven’t injured anyone else or injured anyone else’s property, there is no crime and no issue to be adjudicated and no reason for any Highway Patrolman to stop you.
The all-too typical situation of Patrolman Busybody stopping you because your left tail light is out and issuing you a $100 fine and “order” to get the tail light fixed, is in fact illegal, if you are Jane Doe on her way to pick her kids up from school, or John Doe on his way home from work.
They have no authority to stop you, no authority to fine you, and the only plausible and allowable reason for them to interrupt your day at all, would be to politely inform you that your tail light is out — much as a friend might tell you the same, out of concern for your safety. That’s all. No “tickets” and no “citations” of Motor Vehicle Code should ever be involved in a traffic stop involving a non-commercial driver.
Unfortunately, we have all been strong-armed into “registering” our automobiles as “motor vehicles” and as “public property” when they really aren’t. This forced registration extortion is really at the heart of this debate — not licensing, which has been decided for over a hundred years. It’s the forced registration of private cars and trucks that provides the Highway Patrol with the excuse to “presume” that you are engaged in commercial activities in the first place, even if you aren’t and even if that is perfectly obvious.
In order to pull off their otherwise illegal registration demands, the Perpetrators had to offer remedy to private non-commercial drivers, and that remedy is Regulation Z of the Securities Laws adopted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You and your private car are actually exempt from registration requirements and you can claim that exemption as long as you are an American who is not employed by the Federal Government corporations. In many States including Alaska, you simply need to ask for “Z tags” or “Private Plates”.
No, you don’t need a license to travel from Point A to Point B for your own private reasons and you never did need a license to travel. The entire idea behind licensing is rooted in the fact that some people drive as a profession and make their living off of the use of public roads, and some people drive very large and potentially dangerous loads on the public roads — the origin of Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) — as a business. The courts make a distinction between private use — Grandma going to the grocery store — and ABC Trucking, Inc. doing a double-decker long haul via semi-trailer truck from Georgia to Nevada.
And we think that is reasonable. What’s not reasonable is forced registration of our private trucks and cars and obstruction when we claim our Regulation Z remedy. What’s not reasonable is when we have to defend ourselves against Highway Patrolmen threatening us with bodily harm over broken tail lights. What’s not reasonable is when we are being “mistaken” accidentally-on-purpose as foreigners in our own country. And what’s really not reasonable is when our ability to travel freely is being impeded or prevented by rules, codes, regulations, ordinances, mandates, and statutes that don’t apply to us, because someone thinks that they have the right to redefine “interstate commerce”.
Read on for a nice fat list of court citations that absolutely and definitively deal with the issue of whether or not we need a driver’s license when we travel for private purposes — and the answer is “No!” just as it has been since the 1890’s. But be aware that the greater fish to be fried is the imposition of forced and largely false registration of private cars as “motor vehicles” and obstruction of our access to our Regulation Z exemptions.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
And there you have it, as nice a listing of appropriate court decisions as you could ask for. Now all you have to do is start educating the politicians and the police and claiming your Regulation Z exemptions, so that the “license plates” serve notice that you are not subject to licensing.
And, as always, be aware that the British Territorial Persons named after you and the Municipal citizens of the United States named after you as UNITED STATES CITIZENS are all subject to all the codes, rules, regulations and statutes.
You’re not, but they are.
So while you are educating the politicians and police, be sure to draw the distinction between you and these “hue-men” persons that have been created using your Good Name and Trademarks without your knowledge or agreement.
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
Global Research, July 08, 2022
Since the creation of the US Federal Reserve over a century ago, every major financial market collapse has been deliberately triggered for political motives by the central bank. The situation is no different today, as clearly the US Fed is acting with its interest rate weapon to crash what is the greatest speculative financial bubble in human history, a bubble it created. Global crash events always begin on the periphery, such as with the 1931 Austrian Creditanstalt or the Lehman Bros. failure in September 2008. The June 15 decision by the Fed to impose the largest single rate hike in almost 30 years as financial markets are already in a meltdown, now guarantees a global depression and worse.
The extent of the “cheap credit” bubble that the Fed, the ECB and Bank of Japan have engineered with buying up of bonds and maintaining unprecedented near-zero or even negative interest rates for now 14 years, is beyond imagination. Financial media cover it over with daily nonsense reporting , while the world economy is being readied, not for so-called “stagflation” or recession. What is coming now in the coming months, barring a dramatic policy reversal, is the worst economic depression in history to date. Thank you, globalization and Davos.
By Anna Von Reitz
It’s unlawful and illegal to own living people as slaves, right? Right.
We gave that up ages ago, didn’t we? Yes, we did.
Amendment XIII “Abolished slavery” and by 1926, the League of Nations succeeded in banning both slavery and peonage worldwide.
But look at how the Balrog’s tail snagged a new lease on life and allowed — indeed, institutionalized, slavery for “some” people…. the Fourteenth Amendment defined criminals as slaves and failed to define “criminals” except to inform us that “citizens of the United States” are criminals by definition.
And, going into the Great Depression, men like Franklin Delano Roosevelt pulled another Fast One by selling all the Municipal “citizens of the United States” into slavery. Read over FDR’s First Inaugural Address and his references to “consecration” and “clearinghouse certificates”.
In order to do these evils, FDR and his Buddies had to relabel and redefine the victims as “humans” — that is, not really people, not men and women, but something “else” that the Perpetrators could pass off as something other-than-men-and-women with Natural and Unalienable Rights.
Think of it this way: “man” versus “hue-man” or translate it another way, and you get “man” versus “color of man” or “colored man”. Many of the victims of FDR’s slave sale were actually and factually colored people. So then, we had the whole effort to dig out of the insanity of the Buck Act of 1940, and the Civil Rights Movement for Hue-Mans and The United Nations’ Hue-man Rights Declaration —- and all of this is very helpful and nice, but never addressed the actual issue —- which is slave ownership glossed over (literally) and peonage, too, which were outlawed in 1926.
So, do you want to be classified, legally but not lawfully, as a “human”? No, you definitely don’t. And you don’t want “Human Rights”, either, because whatever those rights may be, it’s still “legal” to kill humans, still “legal” to enslave humans, and still “legal” to steal from humans under force.
It’s not lawful or legal to do any of these things to men and women.
So you want to be a man or you want to be a woman and you want to be on your toes ready to disavow any claim that you are a thing, a Mister, a Missus, a Miss, or any other “Person” or “PERSON” that they can classify as a “Hue-man” and victimize using this pernicious fraud and evasion of the actual Public Law which has forbidden both slavery and peonage since 1926.
Obviously, the cat is finally out of the bag and people are waking up to this maladept use of “legality” to evade the Public Law and abuse innocent people by mischaracterizing and impersonating them as things.
So what do the criminal cretins do? Well, they gin up another scheme, only worse, that allows them to do the same thing — use “legalities” to evade the Public Law.
The U.S. Supreme Court made a bad error and allowed corporations involved in genetic engineering to patent bits and pieces of DNA and mRNA and inject these into plants and animals that they then classify — and own — as “Genetically Modified Organisms”.
Sound oddly familiar? Redefining and relabeling? Owning the newly redefined “things” as slaves? Being able to impose peonage? Being able to kill and imprison and enslave, only this time based on patents?
Are we to endure another round of this gratuitous fraud and crime against humanity —- which includes men and women and also “male” and “female” hue-mans? Crowds of people marching around demanding “GMO Rights!”?
I don’t think so.
This time, it’s the turn of the screw in the opposite direction.
Our country has already passed a Public Law forbidding all claims attempting to define living people as Genetically Modified Organisms, whether or not they have voluntarily accepted patented DNA or RNA altering vaccinations.
And if the recipients of DNA or RNA altering vaccinations die, we recognize no claims of interest in their estates by any corporation whatsoever.
We are going after the criminal masterminds behind all this crap. We know what they did in the past and we know what they are trying to do right now and enough is enough. Before we are done, we will have cleaned up every Board Room from here to Bangkok, and God enlighten anyone who stands in the way, because they will be defending the authors of their own demise.
All you bankers, all you Party Boys, all you “governmental officials” — take heed. The Herd isn’t the Herd anymore— and you are all at the end of your ropes.
We outlawed slavery in 1865 and we outlawed it again, and peonage, too, in 1926, and with God as our Witness, enslavement by redefinition and relabeling of people as “humans” or “GMOs” or anything else —- and evasion of the Public Law via the use of such “legalities” —- is at an end in 2022.
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
This is our Fiduciary for The United States of America [Unincorporated], Anna Maria Riezinger, making history cancelling two 1934 Gold Bonds with the assistance of the Financial Director of The Global Family International Trade Bank. We are privileged to witness and to have video of this historic event. As we witness history being made, it is now time to Intend, Create, and Manifest our future.
By Anna Von Retiz
Ever wonder what happened to all the people from the great civilizations of the past? I mean, where’d they go? Their civilizations have flourished, sometimes for thousands of years, and then, all of sudden, in a relatively brief period of time, poof! They vanish.
Just like the German and Polish Jews during World War II, who were unwise enough to invest in Hitler’s Third Reich.
Worshiping an all-devouring “god” has its advantages.
You made a little “mistake” and an unwanted baby shows up — so, sacrifice it in honor of Molloch.
You made a little “mistake” and over-extended your credit by, oh, more than you could pay off in a hundred thousand lifetimes — sacrifice your creditors in honor of Molloch.
A giant furnace (Molloch) comes in handy, and if you can gloss things over with some sanctimonious religious overtones and excuses, hey, it’s a very convenient way to erase a lot of mistakes.
So, good-bye to the Babylonians! Farewell, the Hittites and Assyrians! The Mycenaean Greeks! The Minoans! The Etruscans! The Persians! The Egyptians! The Romans! The Brits! and now, the US, Inc.!
Too bad the pesky Americans are the actual Preferential Creditors, because it would be too obvious to single them out for extinction. It has to be a bigger overall sacrifice to mask the actual motives for it.
Evasion of debt via the “death” of the Creditors is as old as the concept of debt itself. And if you have a giant furnace all stoked up, well, it’s easy to clean up afterward.
So, first they stole all our gold to “safekeep” it, and trafficked it to the Philippines and placed the Filipino Government over it as the Trustee. Then they issued Gold Bearer Bonds against it as political payola to get everyone in on their scheme. Then, they borrowed all our silver in exchange for paper I.O.U.s….. the list goes on.
That’s how all this happened. That’s how Americans became the Preferential Creditors. And that’s why they came up with the scheme to “kill” all the Americans on paper by unlawfully converting us into British Territorial Citizens. And then converting those British Persons into Municipal Trusts.
And now, having that scheme fall apart, they’ve hit upon killing us for real by unlawfully converting millions of innocent people into patented Genetically Modified Organisms that their corporations can claim to own as property assets.
It reads like a really bad novel. Welcome to the Narrative . It sounded like such a good idea to kill all the American Creditors, they said — if some “debt relief” is good, then more is better! We owe money to almost everyone, so let’s kill everyone off! The more the better! But convert them all into GMO’s first, so we can claim their estates….
That’s what these cretins have done, and what motivates them. Simple greed and evasion of debt. And it’s been the same cycle ever since Babylon.
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com