First king sized bed...

Subject: VERY FIRST KING SIZE BED - AWESOME!

BEAUTIFUL! HOPE YOU KEEP IT GOING!!!! How true this is - love it. Makes your heart smile. THE VERY FIRST KING-SIZED BED : To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas THANK GOD FOR THAT BED AND BABY WHO SLEPT THERE. God Bless America ! Merry Christmas!

Happy Thanksgiving !!!

 Sent from your Brothers

The moment you receive it, say:
Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy name,
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil,
Amen... GOD WANTED ME TO TELL YOU, it shall be well with you this coming year. No matter how much your enemies try this year, they will not succeed.
You have been destined to make it and you shall surely achieve all your goals this year.
For the remainder of 2013, all your agonies will be diverted and victory and prosperity will be incoming in abundance. Today, God has confirmed the end of your sufferings sorrows and pain because HE that sits on the throne has remembered you. He has taken away the hardships and given you JOY. He will never let you down.
I knocked at heaven's door this morning, God asked me, My child! What can I do for you?
And I said,
'Father, please protect and bless the person reading this message. '

It has never been broken. Within 48 hours send to family and friends, as many as you can. God does know if you don't have 20 people to send it to.
It's the effort and intent that counts. This is a powerful Prayer. Couldn't hurt can only help...
Let's pray for one another, there’s no superstition involved here, we are just asking for Gods will to be done here on earth.
GOD BLESS YOU!

If you believe in God, drop everything and pass it on.

How to win in court. UCC 1-207 explained

Dean Clifford, Menard, Bonacci and others are discovering how to win in court. Type their names into youtube.

I was saddled with two ten-year-long lawsuits. The lawyers and Judges drag these things out because they are making money off you. I wound up spending over $250,000 in legal fees for nothing. You only have forty years of useful productive life from age 25 to 65. After that, for the most part you are too old and disabled to start over building a retirement. Before age 25 you usually don’t know what to do with the rest of your life and you lack education. Two of these ten-year-long lawsuits will take half of your useful productive life away and there is nothing more wasteful. It wasn’t until I fired my lawyers that I started winning. Now that I understand how these very destructive type of lawsuits work they will never bother me again. The only problem now is that I am 69 years old and have wasted most of my life fighting bogus lawsuits before I got wise. Here is what you must do:    

When you go into court and you are asked to state your name, say:

I am the Executor and Beneficiary of the last will and testament of God.

What is your standing here?

Are you the Trustee?

What is your claim?

Who are you?         

What is your name?

I am administrating here. (You have to establish what roles the various people are playing in the courtroom. Once you have that established you are free to go.)

All courts use corporate law. There has to be three officers to make a corporation.

Corporate Law is the highest law in the land. It is god’s Law. It is the Holy Trinity. The Bible is God’s Last Will and Testament. Picture a triangle with God at the top and Jesus at lower left. Then you have the Holy Ghost at lower right. In a courtroom situation the Judge is the Executor/executioner at the top. The Holy Ghost is the corporate government at the right. The Holy Ghost government and the God/Executor/executioner is all the same thing while you are the beneficiary. Everyone in the courtroom is there for one thing: to take something from you rather it be your trust/money/life savings/insurance, house, land etc. or in some cases even your, life.

All contract/corporate law operates by presumption. Practically every court in the land uses this highest form of law. They automatically turn your name into a corporate fiction with all capital letters so that the corporate/contract law will apply to your corporate fiction.

Under contract law you never want to be the trustee and you never want the Judge to be the Executor. Under contract law a person (you are a person or dead animal defined in Blacks Law) cannot hold the office of Beneficiary and Trustee or Executor and that’s exactly what is going on in the courtroom. In a courtroom the government holds two offices, the Executor/Judge and the Trustee who wants what you have. They want to take away your trust.

The Judge is not the Executor but he wants you to presume that he is. In reality, he is working for the government who is the trustee. His paycheck comes from the government but he gets a big bonus if he puts someone in jail. In most cases he also has his retirement pension invested in prison stocks therefore everyone he puts in prison benefits the company.

The government holds everything in trust for the people. So when you walk into a court room you automatically have two corporate entities trying to get something from you rather it be for you to confess to a crime you did not do or to take something from you like your house, land, inheritance, IRA, life insurance etc., etc. You are the one that owns something that the lawyers want to get.

You can nullify all that right off if you establish what rolls the people are playing in the courtroom.

When you hire a lawyer to re-present you he has previously sworn an oath to the Barr Association that supersedes any kind of commitment that he has to re-present you. Therefor you have hired someone who is automatically on the side of the government. For the most part any money you give him for a retainer to re-present you is a big waste of money unless you know the attorney is really working for you and has a good chance of winning. About 3 percent of defendants actually win a case. Your odds of actually winning a case with a lawyer are quite small.

You then have a very small chance to contest this by asking the question: “Can I be bound to a contract when my lawyer has a superseding oath?” You can say: “He didn’t provide full disclosure and my lawyer allowed the trial to go forward with the “Presumption” that the Judge is both the Administrator and Executor (executioner). Nothing has changed since the days of the inquisition.

Before you have been suckered into one of these contract courtrooms you definitely must establish a CLAIM OF RIGHT. Simply ask in writing: “Please provide proof of claim for something that you are alleging that I cannot do.” State: “My rights have a fee attached. My offers are non-negotiable. Violating any of my God given rights is a fee of ten-million dollars. You got 21 days to respond.

“Send me some facts or evidence of something I cannot do!”    

Say: “I plead guilty to the facts.” “Are you a bureaucrat?”

All bureaucrats are non-productive entities. All they produce is paperwork. They need us because we are the only ones producing things. All others are parasites.

 If we are all equal under God, when did they get the power to command us?  Government is stealing our livelihood by printing more money and dreaming up bureaucratic hoops for us to jump through so they can sell us a license to line their pockets with more money before we are allowed to work for a living. The constant inflation and enactment of millions of statutes and regulations is taking our children’s future. We can’t get married, drive a car, dig a ditch; or a hundred other things without first paying off some bureaucrat for a permit or license. The license fees are supposed to pay for insurance and other bogus reclamation plans. It was the loggers, fishermen, miners and factory workers that built this nation. Maybe it’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

UCC 1-207

Every system of law has Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way out under the law.

Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law you can recover your loss.

When you go to court you are in Commercial International Jurisdiction. If you claim Constitutional Rights you can be charged with Contempt of Court.

You can’t be charged under one Jurisdiction and defend yourself in another!

So: In a UCC Court you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.

The proper answer is: “The Law doesn’t apply to me.” Then you must make your reservation in which you are charged. UCC 1-207.

“Without Prejudice” is OK

When asked to explain say: “I reserve my right to be compelled to perform under any contract on Commercial Agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.” “I don not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unreserved contract or Commercial Agreement.”

UCC 1-203.6 ANDERSON

“The code is complimentary to the Common Law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code. A statute should be constructed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear Legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.

UCC 1-206 ANDERSON Uniform Code Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company:

“The code cannot be read to preclude Common Law.”

Section UCC 103.c Say:

“I have a remedy under the UCC, to reserve my rights under Common Law. I have exercised the remedy and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in Harmony with Common Law you must come forth with the damaged party.”

If the Judge proceeds then ask: “Let me see if I understand. Your Honor, has the court made a , legal determination that Section 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code which is the system of Law you are operating under are not valid law before this court?

If the answer is yes then say: “I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination. The higher court will uphold the Code on appeal.”

When you sign a driver’s license, lease, buy a car, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, divorce decree etc. or any other document you have a right to draw a line through anything that is not in your interest. It can be a number, a word or group of words. A contract must have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. Add: Seller makes no express guarantees of sea worthiness or condition. Add: “UCC 1-207” or “Without Prejudice” then sign your name.   

e-mail from BIBLICAL SCIENSE NEWS

Hi,

There's a new post at Godsebook.org:

Synthetic Biology Project Funded on Kickstarter

http://www.godsebook.org/kickstarter.html

I hope chemtrails have not put you to sleep!!

This post is important!

Anna

This fills in the blanks - money...

The Paradigm Shift Eastward Dr. Stephen Jones's blog

April 08, 2013 at 11:55 AM

The financial community is having a difficult time keeping up with all the news that is being revealed in regard to the new financial/banking system that is drawing near. All of this is being hidden by the mainstream media, which cooperates with the old Babylonian system to the fullest possible extent, in order to prevent everyone from abandoning the system and thereby crashing it immediately.
I find it interesting that Dr. Jim Willie, one of the more prominent economists that writes a financial newsletter called The Hat Trick Letter, points out that Russia and China are “the Eastern Duo” who are leading the charge against Babylon. My own terminology, based on Scripture, is “The Kings of the East.” Whereas in the days of Daniel, the two nations were Persia and Media, today they appear to be China and Russia. In Daniel’s time, Cyrus of Persia led the way, supported by Darius the Mede; today the dynastic “Dragon” families of China lead the way, supported by Russia.
On April 2, 2013, Willie commented on the Eurasian Trade Zone that is being set up, which excludes the United States. The US itself attempted to set up such a trade zone with Asian countries, but made the mistake of trying to exclude China. That did not work, because the increasing importance of trade with China could not be ignored. The result was that the US is being excluded in return.
In fact, today Australia formally signed a trade agreement with China, where the two nations will trade directly in their own currencies, rather than using the so-called “world currency” (US dollar).
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2013/04/08/Aust_China_currency_deal_secured_861609.html?cid=ZBP_NEWS_L_R1_TOPSTORY_Aust_China_currency_deal_secured_080413
The Australian news media hid this until their Prime Minister actually signed the deal in China today. Their media is much like ours, allowing the insiders to get the jump on everyone else.
And now Britain too has begun to shun the US dollar, first by signing an agreement to trade with Russia in pounds and rubles, rather than in dollars. Dr. Willie says they are now ready to do the same with China in order to ensure their own economic survival.

The Chinese and Russians will conspire to finance the Eurasian Trade Zone corridor foundation with USTBonds, held in reserve, put to usage. The British will play a very unusual role, selling out the United States in order to be squires to the Eastern Duo. The process has begun; it cannot be stopped. The events are already being grossly misinterpreted and minimized in the US press, where devoted lapdogs, artistic swindlers, and creative writers prevail. The Paradigm Shift eastward is showing its next face, with a truly massive trade zone for cooperation and reduced cost overhead as the giant foundation. The Untied States for all of its past hegemony and devious manipulations and vicious attacks, will be excluded. The British will assist in the exclusion in order to avoid the Third World themselves. The following blueprint is the result of years of planning, with steady information and hints and confirmations by at least two Hat Trick Letter sources. The sunset of the USDollar has a blueprint.
http://silverdoctors.com/tag/jim-willie/

It is difficult for the average person to grasp the enormity of this “Paradigm Shift eastward.” It is comparable not only to the fall of Babylon in 537 BC, but also to the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In fact, it is comparable to the fall of each of the beast nations mentioned in Daniel 7. We are sitting on the cusp of prophetic history. If we are not blind, and if we know the Scriptures, we will be not only awed by the hand of God, but also encouraged to know that the Word of God is being fulfilled. Certainly, there is no need to fear, but to rejoice.
On March 30, 2013 Willie was interviewed in an article on Cyprus under the headline: “Cyprus is the Flash Point that will Result in Massive Shift into Gold & Silver.” The theft of bank accounts in Cyprus was the precedent set for the rest of the Babylonian system in the West. As the system drowns in its own debt, the banks will induce their government slaves to search for large pools of money that they can steal, leaving only an IOU note behind in the form of T-bonds, which will soon be worth less than the cost of paper to print them.
Cyprus used to be known as a “safe haven” for offshore accounts. It will never again regain that reputation. Those who lost money in Cyprus know also that their money was stolen by the wicked witch of the West, the IMF. I believe they will shift their money to more secure locations in the East, such as Singapore and Hong Kong. Any nation associated with the Eurozone or dominated by the Fed can no longer have secure banks in which to deposit funds.
Last January the Fed bailed out the European banks with $1.2 trillion. That is the equivalent of the US deficit for an entire year. What did this accomplish? It served to postpone the inevitable. The more money the Fed creates out of nothing, the more diluted its value is. It is like having a kettle of soup where the soup line is a mile long. In order to feed everyone, they keep adding water to the soup.

Dr. Willie contends, “In January alone, the European banks were the beneficiaries of $1.2 trillion from dollar swap facilities as directed by the U.S. Fed. That’s what’s keeping these bonds floating and the banks alive. They’re zombies.” Dr. Willie says, “Europe is on the verge of collapse.” When it does, Dr. Willie says a new “Gold Trade Finance System” is already in place to take over for the dollar. Dr. Willie’s sources say, “The trade finance system has already agreed on a gold price of $7,000 to $8,000. Silver would be $150 to $200 per ounce.” (March 19, 2013)
http://silverdoctors.com/tag/jim-willie/

The desperate creation of new money out of thin air is a last-ditch attempt to keep the banks solvent and to hide the fact that the big international banks are already bankrupt. It matters little that they have hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars in their portfolio. What matters is the value of those dollars. The only thing that gives those dollars value is if someone else will take them in exchange for goods and services.
That is what can change literally overnight.
The great Eastern Paradigm Shift is a move away from money backed by nothing (“fiat money”) into a new system where the Gold Standard is being reinstituted. Willie says of this,

“The Gold Trade Standard is coming into view. The East is no longer following the US lead, as a rebellion against the USDollar and its toxic USTreasury Bond is well along. The Eastern giants Russia and China are forging a new path, to install a new Gold Trade Standard that thumbs its nose at the Western banking system and the FOREX currency market. Its marketplace will be the Eurasian Trade Zone, and its gold central bank will be the BRICS Development Fund (clever name to disguise its eventual function).”
http://silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-zirp-the-death-knell/#more-24437

He says that a new currency will be issued, and he calls it the Gold Trade Unit. It will be a paper claim on gold and will be fully backed by gold. The US dollar used to be just that. In fact, old currency prior to 1933 used to have a statement printed on it proclaiming that “this note is redeemable in gold.” That statement was replaced by “This note is redeemable in lawful money,” admitting, of course, that the Federal Reserve Notes were not actually lawful money. Finally, it dropped all pretense of being redeemable by anything and relied only on the faith and confidence of the people to use it as a medium of exchange in purchasing things from the stores.
That was the beginning of the end of the US dollar. It was only a matter of time before Mystery Babylon would collapse. It ran its 70-year course from 1933 to 2003, and we have now accounted for the ten-year Hezekiah Factor in 2013. In other words, we have arrived at the next major Paradigm Shift in Babylonian history.
It is also precisely 100 years since the Federal Reserve Act was passed (Dec. 23, 1913).
Plans are being made even now to revalue more than 100 currencies of the world, adjusting them to their real value relative to gold. Some will be revalued up, and some down, depending on their natural resources and their economy in general. The Iraqi dinar is only one of those currencies, though perhaps the most significant, due to its extremely undervalued position ever since the UN sanctions were imposed on them in 1990.
The western Babylonian bankers are fighting to hold on to their world power, but their efforts to manipulate the markets to depress the price of gold and support the value of the dollar and euro cannot be maintained much longer. In fact, their efforts will only result in a greater disaster, because they are not preparing for this change. Nor are they telling the American and European people through the media, which might allow them to prepare for the new system.
Fortunately, however, God has worked in the hearts of the Kings of the East, answering the prayers of a hundred million Christians in China. The Dragon families are not necessarily Christians (though some of them are), even as King Cyrus was not a believer in the God of the Bible. Nonetheless, our sovereign God has raised them up, proving once again that He can use non-believers as easily as believers to accomplish His purposes.
The Dragon families intend to set the world free from the Satanist rulers of Babylon. Their stated intent is to rebuild the nations of the world with their new Development Bank. They believe that they lost their Mandate of Heaven a century ago (1910), due to the corruption of the dynastic rulers themselves, and they intend to regain that Mandate by being benevolent and constructive. Their intent is to force the cancellation of all debts and institute some form of a Jubilee with this new system.
That is something God can work with. He will use them to remove the worst of the bankers. All known Satanists will be removed from power, and believe me, the Dragon families have done their homework to learn who they are. Of course, most of the small banks are run by good people, and bank employees are certainly not to blame, so they will not be harmed in any way.
Someday the secret history of the overthrow of Mystery Babylon will be written. We are on the edge of the most exciting time ever seen in world history. This generation is privileged to witness it, even as Daniel, in his old age, witnessed the fall of old Babylon and the rise of Medo-Persia, led by God’s Shepherd, Cyrus, the “messiah” (Isaiah 45:1).
As for us, we have received revelation that 2013 is the Year of Release. By the 15-year Hezekiah extension, we have gone back to the year 1998, where the decree went forth to cast out the bondwoman and replace her with the freewoman. That transition was revealed in the location of the Passover conferences, which moved from Hagerstown (1998) to Philadelphia (1999). For this reason, we expect to see the coming year as a major transition from bondage to freedom.
Likewise, by the ten-year Hezekiah Factor, we look back to the year 2003, when the old territory of Babylon—now known as Iraq—was overthrown. This set the spiritual precedent for the overthrow of Mystery Babylon that we are seeing today. Back in 2003, I wrote how President Bush had no idea how he was undermining Mystery Babylon by overthrowing Iraq. When presidents and politicians have little understanding of Bible prophecy, they do things blindly. It remains for us to see and understand and to be encouraged that God is still on the throne.

---

This is Part 1 of a four part series titled "The Paradigm Shift Eastward". The links for all four parts are below.

Part 1 - The Paradigm Shift Eastward

Part 2 - The Paradigm Shift Eastward--Part 2

Part 3 - The Paradigm Shift Eastward--Part 3

Part 4 - The Paradigm Shift Eastward--Part 4

George Soros bought the election for 5-billion dollars...

Steve  Kroft (born August 22, 1945) is an American journalist and a longtime  correspondent for 60 Minutes. His investigative reporting has garnered  him much acclaim, including three Peabody Awards and nine Emmy awards,  one of which was an Emmy for Lifetime  Achievemen


You can understand what is happening to our   America after reading this.  May God have mercy upon our  nation.  
 *******************************************************************************************


One Evil  Human   

FROM STEVE KROFT  (60 Minutes)   


This is very interesting material.  Glen Beck has been developing material to show all the ties that Soros  has through the nation and world along with his goals. This article is  written by Steve Kroft from 60 Minutes.  It begins to piece  together the rise of Obama and his behavior in leading the nation  along with many members of Congress (in particular the Democrats, such  as the election of Pelosi as the minority leader in   Congress).
If you have wondered where Obama came from and  just how he quickly moved from obscurity to President, or why the  media is "selective" in what we are told, here is the man who most  probably put him there and is responsible. He controls  President Obama's every move. Think this is absurd?   Invest  a few minutes and read this. You won't regret it.


Who is  Obama? Obama is a puppet and here is the explanation of the man or  demon that pulls his strings. It's not by chance that Obama can  manipulate the world. I don't think he knows how to tie his shoe  laces. After reading this and Obama's reluctance to accept help on the  oil spill you wonder if the spill is part of the plan to destroy the   US ?  "In history, nothing happens by accident. If it happened,  you can bet someone planned it."/ Franklin Delano  Roosevelt     



Who Is George  Soros? He brought the market down in 2 days. Here is what CBS' Mr.  Steve Kroft's research has turned up. It's a bit of a read, and it  took 4 months to put it together. "The main obstacle to a stable and  just world order is the United States . "George  Soros"    




George Soros is an evil  man.  He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good."  He killed and robbed his own Jewish people. What we have in Soros, is  a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a  sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist  World class philosopher, despises the American way, and just loves to  do social engineering and change cultures. 

György  Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born   August 12, 1930 in Hungary . Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent  practitioner of the Esperanto language invented in 1887, and designed  to be the first global language, free of any national identity. The  Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to  Soros, in order to facilitate  assimilation into the Gentile  population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.  


When Hitler's henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary ,  to oversee the murder of that  country's Jews, George Soros ended  up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish  population. Soros went with him on his  rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944   "the best year of his life." 70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in  Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that  year, yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his  elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect" During an  interview with "Sixty Minute's" Steve Kroft, Soros was asked  about  his "best year." 

KROFT: My understanding is  that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were  his adopted godson.   SOROS: Yes.  Yes. 


KROFT:  Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from  your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.   SOROS: Yes.  That's right.  Yes. 


KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an  experience that  would send lots of people to the psychiatric  couch for many, many, years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: No,  not at all. Not at all, I  rather enjoyed it.  


KROFT: No feelings of  guilt? 


SOROS:  No, only feelings of absolute  power. 


In his  article, Muravchik describes how Soros  has admitted to having  carried some rather "potent messianic fantasies with me from  childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me  in trouble." Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London  School of Economics, where he fell  under the thrall of fellow  atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper,  one of his professors.  Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper's  death in 1994. Two  of Popper's most influential teachings concerned  "the open  society," and Fallibilism. 
  
Fallibilism is the  philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in  principle, be mistaken. (Then again, I could be wrong about  that.)   The "open society" basically refers to a "test and  evaluate"  approach to social engineering. Regarding "open  society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the Second World War, most of the  Western democracies have followed Popper's advice about piecemeal  social  engineering and democratic social reform, and it has  gotten them into a grand mess." 

In 1956 Soros moved to   New York City , where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing  his  fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency  speculation.  Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in  his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he  was well on  his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is  today. 


In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American  Thinker" she says, "Soros made his first billion in 1992 by  shorting  the British pound with leveraged billions in financial  bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England .  He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who  immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings  cut drastically, almost overnight."

In 1994 Soros  crowed in "The New Republic ," that "the former Soviet Empire is now  called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which  almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach,  then head of the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest  social robberies in human history. "The "Soros Empire" indeed. In 1997  Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia .   At the time, Malaysia 's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad,  called  Soros "a = villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng  Tojirakarn said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He  sucks the  blood from the people."


The website Greek  National  Pride reports, "Soros was part of the full court press  that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia , Ukraine and  Myanmar [Burma] Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to  tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New  World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without  conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute  amorality."

France has upheld an earlier conviction   against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9  million dollars. Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2   million dollars for "illegal market manipulation." Elizabeth  Crum  writes that the Hungarian economy has been in a state of  transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and  westernized. Soros deliberately driving down the share price of its  largest bank put Hungary 's economy into a wicked tailspin, one from  which it is still trying to recover.


My point here is that  Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a  global reach.  But what about America ? Soros told Australia  's  national newspaper "The Australian." " America , as the  centre of  the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the  savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out," he said,  adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in  American's consumption habits.  He implied that he was the one  with the  power to bring this about."

Soros: "World  financial crisis was "stimulating" and "in a way, the culmination of  my life's work."


Obama has recently promised 10 billion of  our tax dollars to Brazil , in order to give them a leg-up in   expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's largesse towards Brazil  came shortly after his political financial backer, George Soros,  invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).


Tait Trussel  writes, "The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil ,  but it is a bad deal for the U. S. The American Petroleum Institute  estimates that oil exploration in the U S could create 160,000 new,  well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal,  state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy  security and independence."

A blog you might want to  keep an eye on is SorosWatch. com. Their mission: "This blog is  dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial   pursuits of George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the  theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without   conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and  to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to  stop  preying upon the world's poor, that justice will be  served."


Back to America . Soros has been actively working  to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People  have been warning us. Two years ago, news sources reported that "Soros  [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy,  legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart  dangerous."\ In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his  philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values  and attitudes of the  Western world, and particularly of the  American people. His "open society" is not about freedom; it is about  license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of  a PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements."  

Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers"  are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book "The Shadow Party"  outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now  owns it lock, stock, and barrel. Soros has been packing the Democratic  Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. The  Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which recently became the  Obama Administration. 

Discover The Networks.  org  (another good source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own  admission, he  helped engineer coups in Slovakia , Croatia ,   Georgia , and    Yugoslavia . When Soros targets a country  for "regime change," he begins by creating a  shadow government,  a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to  assume power when  the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America  greatly resembles those he has created in other  countries prior  to instigating a coup." 

November  2008 edition  of the German magazine "Der Spiegel," in which Soros  gives his  opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U. S. )  should  do after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package."  Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right. Soros also  said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally  deal with global warming and energy dependence.  The U. S. needs  a cap and trade system with  auctioning of licenses for emissions  rights." 

Although Soros doesn't (yet) own  the  Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his  tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as  well.


Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has  invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by  "The Baltimore Chronicle's" Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye  Group  is run by "a veritable who's who of former Republican leaders," from  CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head and ex-President George Bush,  Sr. 

In late 2006, Soros  bought about 2  million shares of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds.  When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000,  Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same  cities, at the  same time. In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 ( that's Five  Billion ) to the  Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure  Obama's win and wins  for many other Alinsky trained Radical  Rules Anti-American  Socialist. George has been contributing a $  billion plus to the DNC since Clinton came on the  scene.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust  me. And if that weren't  bad enough, he has long held connections  with the CIA. And I mustn't forget to mention  Soros'  involvement with the MSM (Main Stream Media), the  entertainment  industry (e. g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time  Warner), and  the various political advertising organizations he  funnels  millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influences most of the  MSM.  Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro's  NEMESIS.


  As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal  billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media   properties for years in order to drive home his message to the  American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too  selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own  lives." 

Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private  philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining   America 's traditional Western   values. His giving has  provided funding of abortion rights, atheism,  drug legalization,  sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control,  globalization,  mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social  engineering."

Some of the many NGOs (Non-Government  Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn. org,  the Apollo Alliance , Media Matters for America , the Tides  Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America ), La  Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with  brief  descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks. org.  

Poe continues, "Through his global web of  Open  Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has  spent  25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a   network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions  of influence and power in media, government, finance and   academia." 

Without Soros' money, would the Saul  Alinsky's Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La  Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and  lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses  still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? 

America  stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly  attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously  planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barack Obama is  leading the way. 


The words of Patrick Henry are apropos:  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price  of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course  others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me  death!"
-------------- 
  Above information researched by  CBS Steve Kroft 

CISPA abolishes internet privacy...

CISPA would obliterate any semblance of online privacy.

And it's up for a vote this week.
We need to slam Congress's phone lines to encourage lawmakers to vote no.
Please click here to find your lawmaker's phone number and place a call today.
CISPA would allow corporations to track and share all variety of information about Americans.
It would demolish existing barriers between the government and the private sector -- and between government agencies -- that restrict data sharing without cause, effectively allowing information about Americans' use of the Internet to slosh back and forth uninhibited.
It would provide the military and security agencies with broad new powers to track Americans' online activity.
We need members of Congress to oppose the legislation when it comes up for a vote later this week.
Please click here for a call script and to find your lawmaker's phone number -- we need as many calls as possible right away.
Thanks for keeping up the fight.
-Demand Progress

Don Young 202-225-5765

Thank you for calling your member of Congress -- will you take another minute to call members of House leadership? They control what bills Congress votes on.
You can tell them "CISPA would infringe on the privacy of all American Internet users. I urge you to oppose it."
House Speaker John Boehner: (202) 225-6205
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: (202) 225-4000
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-4965

Vehicles registered with the state belong to the state.

 I received the email below. I haven’t verified the source or the relevant laws of “COLORADO” (“this state”). More, even if the email’s allegations are true for “COLORADO,” that doesn’t mean that they would also be true for other administrative divisions (like “TEXAS” or “ILLINOIS”) of “this state”.
Nevertheless, this email has both the ring of truth and of brilliance. The insight offered is so damn simple that, if true, every student of traffic laws should be embarrassed to have overlooked such an obvious truth for so long.
Apparently, the email’s subject (“James”) read the “COLORADO” laws concerning vehicle registration. He realized that while “registration” of “motor vehicles” was required by state law, that law did not adequately define “motor vehicles” and did not specify where such “motor vehicles” must be “registered”.

Everyone presumes that their “motor vehicles” must be registered with their “state’s” version of a “Department of Motor Vehicles” (which, incidentally, is probably a private corporation).
Why do we make that presumption? Because when a new car is purchased, the buyer pays to price of the automobile to the dealer and then also pays an addition fee to “this state” for “Tax, Title and License”.
I’ll bet that every automobile dealer is licensed by “this state” to sell “in this state”. I’ll bet that it’s nigh unto impossible to persuade a licensed automobile dealer to sell you a vehicle without you “voluntarily” agreeing to also pay “Tax, Title and License” to register the new vehicle “in this state”.
Later, when you (the original car buyer) sells your used car to some new purchaser, the new purchaser will see the registration decal on the windshield and the registration papers in the glove compartment and simply presume that: 1) the original buyer registered the vehicle properly with “this state’s” department of motor vehicles; and 2) the new purchaser must continue to register with the same department.
But insofar as the state law did not specify where the vehicle must be “registered,” James decided to “register” his vehicle by using a UCC-1 form filed with the Colorado office of the Secretary of State. James challenged that presumption that the vehicle must be registered with the department of motor vehicles.
As required by law, James did “register” his vehicle . . . somewhere. But he didn’t register the vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles–he registered with the Secretary of State. By using a UCC-1 filed with the Secretary of State, James apparently created evidence that he–rather than “COLORADO” owned the particular vehicle. By doing so, he challenged the power of “COLORADO” to control the operation of his vehicle.
The UCC-1 can be one of, perhaps the, highest evidence of ownership of a particular property or thing. I presume that James filled out his UCC-1 so as to declare that he owned all right, title and interest in his “vehicle”. By doing so, he probably created evidence that he–rather than “COLORADO”–owned his vehicle.
“COLORADO” could probably dispute James’ claim of ownership–provided that “COLORADO” could produce the actual title (Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin; MSO) to the vehicle and prove that “COLORADO” owned that title and was therefore the true owner of the vehicle.
But there’ve been unconfirmed reports for at least 15 years that when the MSO is voluntarily sent to the “STATE” as part of the “Tax, Title and License,” the “STATE” creates a digital image of the MSO and then destroys the actual MSO (or some say, sells the actual MSO to some US or even foreign bank to be used as collateral for making loans). I don’t know what the truth is about how the “STATE” handles MSO’s, but I do know that if they can’t produce the actual, original MSO, they have virtually no legitimate basis for claiming ownership of a particular property or vehicle.
I believe the fundamental reason that we must have drivers licenses and insurance as conditions prerequisite to drive the automobiles we’ve purchased is that the original buyer voluntarily donated his MSO (title) to the “STATE” as part of the purchase agreements. (Remember? The cost of a particular car might be $20,000–”plus, Tax, Title and License”. The first buyer paid an extra fee to the “STATE” to compensate the “STATE” for assuming the legal title and consequent obligation to controlling the operation of the vehicle.). Thus, the “STATE” is presumed to own legal title to the vehicle and is thereby empowered and even obligated to control who can use the vehicle and under what conditions.
For example, if the “STATE” (as opposed to “The State”) owns legal title to “your” automobile, the “STATE” has every right to declare that it will only allow its vehicle to be driven by someone who has a drivers license. That requirement for a drivers license is not imposed by “law,” but by private law relating to the private ownership of the vehicle. More, if the “STATE’s” vehicle is not currently insured, that “STATE” will not allow it to be driven by anyone.
Today, the “STATE’s” claim to own legal title to the vehicle is reportedly based on the existence of a digital copy of the original MSO. So long as no one produces a higher form of evidence of ownership of a particular vehicle, the “STATE” will be able to control the operation of its vehicle.
James has apparently deduced that an actual, signed and registered UCC-1 can be a higher form of evidence of ownership than a mere copy of a now missing MSO. More, James has demonstrated an apparent brilliance in that he: 1) read the relative registration requirement laws; 2) realized that the “STATE” does not specify where to “register” his vehicle, and 3) therefore registered the vehicle by means of a UCC-1 with his Secretary of State rather than the local version of a “department of motor vehicles”.
James reportedly proceeded to devise his own “sovereign” license plate to indicate that his vehicle: 1) is registered with the Secretary of State: 2) is owned by James; 3) is not owned by “COLORADO”; and 4) is therefore not subject to the traffic laws of ”COLORADO”.
Of course, James was subsequently stopped for driving with a “sovereign” license plate and ticketed for “no registration”. His vehicle was towed. It cost James $250 to retrieve his vehicle the following day. He went to court, argued that the “registration” laws were unconstitutionally vague and that he had registered with the Secretary of State . . . you can read the result in the following email:

“Notice to all Freemen acquainted with God-given rights.

“A Small Victory . . . over the System

“James S. has an unregistered Ford Truck with “Sovereign” license plates on it, and a painted sign on his door saying to this effect: “Privately owned, not driven for commercial purposes. UCC 1 . . . NM Secretary of State”

James was pulled over by a cop in Eagle Colorado two months ago . . . and cited for driving an unregistered vehicle. His truck was impounded and hauled away. The next day James retrieved it from the compound, but had to pay $250.
“James showed up in court at 8:30 A.M. this morning, with his paper work, and the D.A. asked him why his vehicle wasn’t registered. James pointed out (1) that it was registered under the UCC with the Secretary of State but not NMTRD, and (2) that Colorado’s law was void for vagueness; that is, Colorado law required registration but did not inform its citizens of where and when and with whom an automobile had to be registered ;. . . or if even private property had to be registered with the state.
““What is a sovereign plate?” asked the D.A. and the judge. James answered, “It is a notice this is private property not subject to regulation by the state . . . that this truck is not used in commerce . . . ” “Uh . . er . . .uh . . .O.K.” said the D.A.
“James asked, “Your law says a vehicle has to be registered” but your law does not define “vehicle” nor say where it has to be registered. I presume the law is talking about state vehicles owned and operated by the state or those operating in commerce. Further, where must your commercial vehicles be registered? The law does not say!! Do you want them registered at the bulletin board at the local 7-Eleven Store, or the local librarian, or the county clerk, or posted on a telephone pole. My private truck is registered with the highest authority in the State of New Mexico—the Secretary of State. My truck is competently registered and you must dismiss this case. You have no claim on me or my private property.
““O.K.” said the D.A. “Case dismissed” declared the judge. [James was stunned by the ignorance of the court officers . . . and the fact that 100 victims set in the courtroom didn’t have a clue what just happened.]
“James is going to bill the police officer for impounding his truck without cause.

“Pastor Brooks”

I just love a happy ending, don’t you?
In fact, if this email is true, it’s only an anecdote. It doesn’t prove anything. But it is evidence that a careful reading of the vehicle registration laws in your “STATE” might provide the basis for some amazing challenges to governmental power.
It’s all about reading.
In this case, James read the relevant vehicle registration laws and–astonishingly–observed the obvious: the laws didn’t specify where a vehicle must be registered. From that one observation, we might see an increase in freedom.
.
One more point: We might suppose that the failure to specify the place or agency where a vehicle must be registered is simply an enormous oversight by the people writing the laws of “this state”. OK–maybe they screwed up in “COLORADO,” but the remainder of the administrative divisions of “this state” will not have made the same mistake. More, “COLORADO” may soon correct the error discovered by James.
But maybe the failure to specify where the vehicle must be registered is not an oversight. That omission might be critical to the operation of the current traffic law “system”.
Why? Because if the “The State/this state” hypothesis is valid, it appears that we can’t be coerced into “this state” and can only enter “voluntarily“. To act “voluntarily” presumes that a man must be in position to choose one of several options. If the the current vehicle registration laws specified where the vehicle must be registered “in this state,” such registration could not be deemed to “voluntary”. It’s only when the place/agency of registration is unspecified that an implied choice is present and thus the act of registration “in this state” can be deemed voluntary.
Could it be that James has stumbled onto the fundamental choice to register his property, his vehicle, perhaps even himself (?) within “The State” (with the Secretary of State?) or “in this state” (with the department of motor vehicles)? Is registration something akin to “identification” in the sense that if I register my property “in this state” I “identify” with “this state” and voluntarily subject myself and my proprty to the rules and regulations of “this state”? On the other hand, if I register with “The State,” do I voluntarily identify with and subject myself and my property to the laws of The State of Texas?
.
I expect to have a better understanding of these possibilities over the next week or two as some who read this article write comments to tell us whether their “state’s” vehicle registration rules do or do not specify the place/agency where the vehicle must be registered. If it turns out that all other “states” specify where the vehicle must be registered, then the “COLORADO” regulations are probably just an error. If it turns out that a significant number of other “states” also fail to specify where a vehicle must be registered, then we may be seeing a very important possibility. And if it turns out that all other “states” also fail to specify where a vehicle must be registered, then I’d bet we’ve stumbled onto a profound insight: we have the freedom to choose whether we want to register our property “in this state” or “within The State”.
.
There’s also question as to whether the UCC-1 is a good choice. My understanding is that all things “UCC” are “in this state”. A UCC-1 may be sufficient to stop a claim by “this state” that it owns title to your property “in this state”. The UCC-1 may still constitute evidence that the property is owned by you rather than “COLORADO,” but still be evidence that the property remains “in this state”. As such, a UCC-1 may not be an effective means to claim sovereignty. In fact, using a UCC-1 may tend to compromise any claims of individual sovereignty.
So, it may well be that there’s another means of registering your property with The State that is vastly superior to using a UCC-1. If we keep looking, we’ll find it.
But even if the UCC-1 is less than an ideal means to remove our property from “this state,” James has shown us reason to suspect that the “where” in vehicle registration laws may be intentionally unspecified in order to create evidence that we can each choose to make our property subject to the rules of “this state”. If so, there must be another option whereby we can make our property subject to the laws of “The State”. If we can find that other option, we might be able to walk out from under drivers licenses, vehicle insurance, property taxes, and the heavy-handed control of “this state”.
.
Finally, If there’s one lie in the email above, it’s the title’s reference to “a small victory”. If James’ story turns out to be true, his “victory” is far from “small”.

GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIES PEOPLE AS ANIMALS

“There are 2 kinds of dope dealers. There are those that work out of the streets of slums and wear Air Jordon tennis shoes. There are those that work out of offices and wear white coats.

“The difference is that the ones with the Air Jordons are unlicensed, don’t take Medi-Care or insurance and only sell for cash. They don’t pay taxes either. The ones with the white coats have licenses, pay taxes, charge more for their dope, seldom take cash and collect most of their sales from the government and insurance companies.

“Soma must be the generic name for Progenitorivox.”

Bear in mind that the entire pharmaceutical industry is based on state and federal definitions of the word “drug” (e.g., see TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §431.002(14) and 21 U.S.C.A. §321(g)(1)) that presume the phrase “man or other animals”. This phrase declares the American people to be “animals” rather than men and women made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”). (See, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/) 

The whole pharmaceutical industry could be crippled or destroyed by a concerted attack on the “man or other animals” presumptions.
The presumption that the people are nothing but “animals” constitutes an act of genocide (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/).
The earliest instance of the federal government’s presumption that the people are nothing but “animals” is seen in Section 6 of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food & Drug Act. Your federal government has been committing acts of genocide against you and the American people for over a century. There is no way to square that century with the notion that government “is here to help you”. We are dealing with a government that’s been determined for over a century to deprive us of the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in our “Declaration of Independence”.


Coincidentally, the word “sorcerer” appears in Revelation 21:8: ”But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
Strong’s Concordance defines that use of the word “sorcerers” (Strong’s # 5332) to be originally transliterated as pharmakeus in Greek. The Greek root for pharmakeus was pharmakon which meant “a drug, i.e. spell-giving potion”.


Thus, it appears that the original intent of Revelation 21:8 may have included a warning to those who use or sell “drugs” (“sorcerers”) that they may be destined for damnation.
The modern term “pharmaceutical” is ultimately derived from the Greek words pharmakeus and pharmakon. It’s at least arguable that the modern pharmaceutical industry includes “sorcerers” of the sort Revelation 21:8 declared to be evil and destined for damnation.


To order my book go: www.GuardDogBooks.com or Amazon.com

DEFINITION OF LAW

WWW.ADASK.WORDPRESS.COM
As Bill Clinton once observed, when it comes to knowing what a law means, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, the meaning of every law depends on the underlying definitions of every word used to comprise that law.

This implies that if you’re charged under a particular law and you can successfully refute the presumed definition of just one of the key words in that law, you may be able to defeat the charges.

Recognize that most words have several definitions and you can see that discovering the the meaning of any law can be very complex. For example, suppose there’s a law that consists of ten words and each of those ten words have just two different possible definitions. If I’m doing my math properly, there would be 2 to the 10^th power (1,024) possible meanings for that 10-word “law”. So, which of the 1,012 possible meanings for that 10 word law is the law?
As Clinton said, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
The law depends on the definitions of the words used to write the law. Thus, the definitions are the underlying and even superior “law” of the law.
But who gets to declare what that meaning of a word is? Who has authority to define words?

• I subscribe to the hypothesis that since A.D. 1968 (the loss of silver-backed currency): 1) the term “The State” has been generally used by the “system” to describe the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; and 2) the term “this state” has been used by the system as a “code” to signify something other than the States of the Union and probably administrative divisions of a single national “territory” under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (Art. 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States).
I didn’t author that hypothesis, but I’ve supported it for a decade or more. I’ve written a series of articles that touch on that hypothesis (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/).
For me, one of the most important “finds” in support of that hypothesis was Article 1.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code (see, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm) which defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows:

“This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.”

Note that “this state” is not defined to include any people, nor does it have any geographic borders. Without border, it could be global (or even universal) in nature. It might be the working definition of the territorial jurisdiction of the New World Order.
But, most importantly, I read Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) to mean that the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” exists wherever “this state has power to define offense”.
This implies that it’s all about definitions.
Given that “this state” has no geographical borders (and presumably extends out to Oklahama, Canada, Mexico and even Mars), it appears that if you accept the definitions of “this state,” then you’re presumed to be in the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. If so, it may follow that if you reject the definitions of “this state,” you are not “in this state” or subject to its territorial jurisdiction.

• Note also that the definition of this state’s territorial jurisdiction relies on the “power to define offenses”—not the “authority to define offenses”.
For example, on this blog, I have the “power” to define words any way I like. If I want to define the word “peace” to mean “war,” I have the power to do so within the “jurisdiction” of my blog. Not one of you can stop me from defining words however I like on my blog.
But. While I may have the power to define words however I please on my blog, I do not have the authority to make any one of you accept my definitions. So long as I have power—but not authority—to define words, you have a choice as to whether you wish to agree that “war” means “war” or “war” means “peace”.
I believe that something similar applies to the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. The “Achilles heel” of “this state” appears to be that it has much power, but no authority. Today, The States of the Union appear to have virtually no power, but still retain all of the authority. “This state,” conversely, has virtually all of the power, but none of the authority.
Why? Because authority over the people flows from the People’s consent. That consent was manifested on a state-wide basis by the Constitution of The State of Texas. “This state,” however, has no express constitution authorized by We the People. Thus, “this state” has no authority over you or me, unless you or I grant that authority on a case-by-case, transaction-by-transaction basis. I might recognize the “authority” of “this state” today in my decision to register my automobile; I might reject the “authority” of “this state” tomorrow when I refuse to pay sales taxes. It’s my choice every time I transact.
Without our presumed consent (actually, assent), “this state” couldn’t exist. This notion seems to underlie the de facto officer doctrine created by the US Supreme Court: If some employee of a private corporation wearing a badge and a gun comes up to you and you say “What seems to be the problem, officer”—it will be presumed that you have just recognized that private employee as an “officer” of the de jure government; that, by your act of “recognition,” you have thereby given that private employee authority (that he didn’t have from his employer) to proceed against you; that you have voluntarily provided that employee with immunity from your subsequent lawsuit against him for impersonating an “officer” of the constitutional State’s government.
Everything I’ve been able to see for ten years indicates that “this state” is all based on your presumed assent. Because you don’t expressly object, it is presumed that you have voluntarily but silently “assented” to the exercise of power by “this state”. However, if you can defeat that presumption (and I don’t suggest that it’s easy to do so), it appears that you may be able to walk right out from under the “power” of “this state”.

• Insofar as definitions are the foundation for the territorial jurisdiction of “this state,” if you don’t asssent to the definitions “proposed” by “this state,” you’re not really “in this state”.
Of course, before you can object to any of the definitions proposed by “this state,” you’ve got to begin to discover those definitions and learn to read them with enough insight to refute them and then claim to use a different definition.
I don’t mean to suggest that you decide to insist on your own, “homemade” definitions as an alternative to the definitions of “this state”. You will not be able to define “war” to be “peace” and expect the courts of “this state” to do much more than grin and ship you off for a psyche evaluation.
In order to challenge the definitions of “this state,” you will have to be able to point to alternative definitions that are supported by some authority that “this state” will not be able to easily deny—especially in front of a jury.
For example, when I was sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million /year) (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/) I devised a “freedom of religion” defense and (after investing 6 years and most of one-half million dollars in the pretrial investigation and hearings in the case), the Texas AG dropped the lawsuit. I didn’t fully understand it at the time (A.D. 2006), but the essence of my defense was a challenge to the definitions of “this state”. The gov-co defined the people to be “animals”. I argued that as Jew or Christian, I cannot be defined as an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of my faith: that man alone is created in God’s image and given “dominion over the animals” (Genesis 1:26-28). I defined myself as a “man” under God’s law. The AG’s office presumably realized they could never find a jury that included even one Christian or Jew to vote that I and the rest of the People are animals—and dropped the case.
The Texas Penal code’s definition of “this state,” supra, includes no fixed borders and no people. However, if I recall correctly, in the A.D. 1869 case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court defined a “State” (of the Union) to normally include: 1) the People; 2) a fixed territory; and 3) a State government. Such a “State” (of the Union) could exist without fixed borders or even without a functioning State government, but could not exist without any People. Thus, the Supreme Court’s definition of a State of the Union (which includes People) is clearly different from the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “this state” (which apparently has no People).
I infer that if you want to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” simply identify yourself under oath as one of the People of The State of Texas—just as it says in the Preamble to The Constitution of The State of Texas: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
This strategy is not certain to free you from the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state”—other tactics may be required to affect your Liberty—but defining yourself under the authority of the Texas Constitution as one of the People of The State of Texas is a big first step in that direction.

• I’ve argued for several months that if you would be free, you must have at least as many dictionaries as you have firearms.
One dictionary is not enough. You need several dictionaries from several different eras so you can view the meaning of a word in one dictionary from A.D. 1828 and compare it to another dictionary in A.D. 1933 and another from A.D. 2009. By comparing the definitions of a particular word over a century or more, you’ll begin to appreciate how fluid and unfixed meanings can be.
Once you see how quickly definitions can change (especially in law dictionaries), you’ll begin to see that a definition from even yesterday might not be the definition today. Once you appreciate how quickly the definitions can change, you’ll be led to ask, “Who sez what a definition is at any particular time?” In other words, under whose authority is the definition of a word changed or decided at any given time?
In some instances, the authority is the Supreme Court. In some instances, Congress. But in many instances the authority is We the People in the context of our private contracts, notices, trusts and daily communications. Insofar as those definitions are changed by common usage, they’re changed by mutual consent. (For example, today’s common definition of the word “gay” is quite different from the common definition of 50 years ago. That change has been achieved by mutual consent.) If you don’t consent to a definition that depends on your consent, you’re not likely to be bound by the terms of whatever sentences use that word and definition.

• More, even when the Congress or Supreme Court acts with apparent authority to define words (and thus would not seem to require your personal consent) under certain circumstances, their apparent authority can be challenged. If their authority is missing, then the definition cannot be imposed but instead requires your consent.
For example, the 9^th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.” The 9^th Amendment is the doorway back to the “Declaration of Independence” that declares that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Thus, the 9^th Amendment’s protection for rights not expressly “enumerated” in the Constitution opens the door for me to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the “Declaration”.
But. Who is defined by the 9^th Amendment as being entitled to claim those unenumerated rights? The “people”. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”) If you appear in court in the capacity of a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “individual,” “resident,” “person” or any one of a score of other descriptions, your claim of God-given, unalienable Rights might be ignored. Court is a game of words much like Mother May I or Simon Says. If you don’t say the exactly right word at the right time, you may lose.

• Insofar as the 9^th Amendment opens the door for me to claim my God-given, unalienable Rights, it also opens the door to challenge the authority of Congress or the Supreme Court to define any word in a way that would “deny or disparage” any of my unenumerated rights.
For example, the drug laws define the people to be “animals”. If you and I are mere “animals,” then: 1) we are not men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); and 2) we are not “people” under the 9^th Amendment. As “animals,” we have no standing to claim any God-given, unalienable Rights or complain if those rights are violated.
But. Does the Congress or Supreme Court have authority to define you and I to be “animals”? No.
Why?
Because defining us to be “animals” violates our freedom of religion (as protected by the 1^st Amendment) and our access to our God-given, unalienable Rights (as secured by the 9^th Amendment). Insofar as you can point to authority in the Bible, Declaration of Independence, and 1^st and 9^th Amendments to show that you are a “man” and one of the “people,” you can claim your God-given, unalienable Rights and individual sovereignty any time you find enough intelligence, knowledge and courage to do so.
What’s the implication?
The implication is that you can be defined and treated as an “animal” only so long as you consent (or assent) to that definition. Would you like to regain your Liberty? Stop assenting to be treated as an “animal” (or any other kind of entity other than a “man made in God’s image, endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and one of the People of The State of Texas” (or of some other States of the Union).
If this strategy seems fairly simple, it’s still not easy to execute. You’re not likely to walk into court mumble a few words about the Bible, Declaration and 9^th Amendment and see the case against you dismissed.
It’s a word game, remember?
Insofar as that’s true, you must be fluent in the language. You must be adept at using words. You must make it your business to discipline your mind to think and speak in complete sentences. No more “watchamacallits” or “whatisface” or “y’unnerstan?”. You must aspire to write and speak like Thomas Jefferson. Not many of us will achieve that objective. But if you aspire only to talk like one of your “homies in duh hood,” you may be cool, baby, but you be goin’ to jail.
If you want out from under “this state,” your first step is to become fluent in the English language.

• Once you begin to study and learn your own language, once you begin to study dictionaries, you’ll begin to understand that definitions are ultimately consensual in nature. Insofar as the exercise of power by “this state” depends on a preliminary Notice or a meeting of the minds, that Notice and/or “meeting” depend on the parties agreeing to the definitions of the words which comprise that notice of “meeting of the minds”. If you can effectively refute the definitions of “this state,” you may be able to hold “this state” at bay.
The battle against tyranny may devolve into a shooting revolution, but that battle is first and foremost a battle of words. You are ensnared in a seemingly invisible net composed of nothing more than words.
It follows that, insofar as you become adept at discerning between the meanings and definitions of words, you can begin to extricate yourself from the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”.