01 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE

02 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

03a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS
03b SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION
04a REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
04b RELEASE OF POWER OF PROPERTY
05 POWERS OF ATTORNEY
COVER LETTER I
COVER LETTER II
EXHIBIT A – COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT A2 – COPY OF BACK OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT B – PHOTO COPY OF SS CARD, DRIVER LICENSE
EXHIBIT C – COPY OF DD 214 (if discharged from military)
EXHIBIT D – COPY OF HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA (or where it can be validated)
EXHIBIT E – TRUST RECEIPTS, 89 CJS
EXHIBIT F – DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER
EXHIBIT G – PARSON
EXHIBIT H – TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT
EXHIBIT I – LETTER ROGATORY
EXHIBIT J – DIPLOMATIC PROTEST
EXHIBIT K – INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES
EXHIBIT L – DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF VALUE
EXHIBIT M – INLAND EMPIRE UNDER MOYTOY
EXHIBIT N – FIRST CORPORATE DIPLOMATIC PROTEST
EXHIBIT O – CHRISTIAN APPELLATION
EXHIBIT P – UCC 1 SHOWING LIEN CREDITOR
EXHIBIT Q1 – BENEFICIARY TO THE ORIGINAL TRUST
EXHIBIT Q2 – GOVERNMENT IS TRUSTEE, NOT BENEFICIARY
EXHIBIT R – CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK
EXHIBIT S – CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP
EXHIBIT T – NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT
EXHIBIT U – NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION/REPATRIATION
EXHIBIT V – GRANTOR INJURED BEYOND DAMAGE RECOVERY
EXHIBIT W – CLAIM OF POSTLIMINY
EXHIBIT X – DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE
EXHIBIT Y – GRANTOR NOT A FRANCHISE
EXHIBIT Z – DIVERSION ORDER, STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

******************************************************************8
EXHIBIT Y – Grantor NOT a Franchise

Grantor explicitly denies being a Franchise, or any part of a franchise, for the benefit of any
corporate function, action, body, government, or other “entitlement” outside of Grantor’s own
autonomous Free Inhabitancy, therefore, not subject to any fiction of law or corporation, to wit:

In PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420

(1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.) we find that "...where there is a capacity to take and hold; the only
thing wanting is the franchise of succession, so that the property of the society may pass to
successors instead of heirs. Termes de la Ley 123; 1 Bl. Com. 368-72. This and other franchises
are the ligaments which unite a body of men into one, and knit them together as a natural
person (4 Co. 65 a); creating a corporation, an invisible incorporeal being, a metaphysical
person (2 Pet. 223); existing only incontemplation of law, but having the properties of
individuality ..."
Then we find that, "It is the object and effect of the incorporation, to give to the artificial
person the same capacity and rights as a natural person can have..." and, "...they can take and
enjoy property to the extent of their franchises as fully as an individual..."
Please note near the beginning in bold "...where there is a capacity to take and hold;..." is a
stipulation that only applies to the ability to "take and hold [TITLE]". Claimant has no record or
evidence that any corporation has a "Right of Soil", except the State Republic chartered. And,
remember, the People, not “persons,” are the State.
Now we have discovered that a Corporation is a person, yes, even a natural person. Every
"person", or those administering for said "person" outside their corporate "body" has the
responsibility of acting and reacting within the parameters of "Common Law", which governs
the natural Man. It is understood that all "persons" are governed by statutes, codes, rules, and
regulations, but the obligations for corporate, privileged "persons" cannot be enforced upon any
Private Man. Wrongful actions by any corporate entity that bring upon Private Man injury shall
be recompensed with remedy under Common Law.
So with that in mind, Libellees have given the person, agency, and etc., knowledge!
Under USC Title 42 §1986. Action for neglect to prevent …, it states: “Every person who,
having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to prevent or
aid in preventing … Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured…”

*********************************************************************

DIVERSION ORDER
STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING

Date: __________________________

To: _______________________________ (name of carrier)

__________________________________
__________________________________ (address)

RECONSIGNMENT OR DIVERSION ORDER

Straight Bill of Lading

Dated: _____________________________
Number: ____________________________
Consignor: __________________________
Consigned to: ________________________

The undersigned consignor under your straight bill of lading number _____________, dated
__________ (month &day) _______ (year), issued by you to __________, of
________________ (address), __________ (city), ___________ (county), ___________ (state),
covering goods described in the bill of lading as ____________, hereby instructs you to
disregard the original instructions as to place of delivery and recipient on the bill and to divert
and deliver the goods to __________, of _______________________ (address), __________
(city), _________ (county), _________ (state), at _________ (location).

The undersigned will pay all reasonable costs and charges of this diversion on your reasonable
request, and warrants its authority to effect this diversion or reconsignment. The undersigned
shall indemnify and hold you harmless for any loss, damage, or expenses in the event the
diversion or reconsignment is challenged.
____________________________________________
(Name of consignor)
*****************************************************************************
***

EXHIBIT X – Demand for Full Disclosure

Claimant/Grantor does herein order all de facto agencies of the UNITED STATES government
and all related and subordinate agencies to disclose the True and Complete Facts and Details of
all monetary, currency, and negotiable instrument investments pertaining to the accounts of
Grantor that are being, or have been, withheld from ready access by Grantor to be released
immediately to Grantor, and avoid Fraud and Deception, as per:

“Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud.”
Universal Inv. Co v Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P 2d 485, 127 Ariz. 213. (Ariz App 1980)

“Where one under duty of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places
peculiar reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make fully and truthful
disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment.”
Stewart v Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P 2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34. (Ariz. 1937)

EXHIBIT T -

NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT AND RIGHT OF SOIL

TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS COME, be informed, take Notice: The married parents of this
living man, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter referred to as “Claimant,” celebrated Claimant’s
Nativity on September 09, 1944, on Douglas County, Republic of Missouri, Claimant being the
sixth of eight children, conceived and born, under lawful Christian parentage, introduced and
witnessed, with entry into the Family Bible, into the Birthright of Jacob/Israel, bearing to this
day and forward the Birthright and Promise of Claimant's Creator, Yahweh. Claimant declares
full Rights as a Legitimate Child under the Law.
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary; NATURAL CHILDREN. “In the phraseology of the English
or American law, natural children are children born out of wedlock, or bastards, and are
distinguished from legitimate children;…”
Claimant makes known to the entire world that; Claimant is a Living Man with Standing upon
the Land, being of Aboriginal Cherokee and Israelite descent and stock, upon the American terra
firma, within the surveyed geographical boundaries of the organic State of Missouri and in
capita holder in due course by Birthright, born a legitimate child, in the image of his Heavenly
Father who is Creator of all that is, and by way of this Notice of Birthright, assures all that
Claimant is a living man of substance and surety and able to give credit where Claimant chooses,
in any amount, without limits, but without limited liability. Claimant is NOT a corporation,
fiction, legal entity, legal fiction, debt, debtor (dead – deador, debtor), or any other juristic
"person".

Claimant plainly declares that he was “birthed” of the water from his Mother’s womb upon the
dry land of the Nation of Missouri; and that the water from his Mother’s womb was the only
water whereby Claimant was “born”. Claimant explicitly denies any association with the
“berthing” of a new vessel in the world of commerce other than Claimant’s own “person”,
yielding nothing to the assumption that any vessel owned by any legal entity, legal fiction, or
corporate association that may have been created at, or near, the same time had, or has, any
semblance of association with Claimant.

With this knowledge of the Truth, this Claimant, offers testimony before any Juristic Society,
Counsel of Men, or any fiction of character, that Claimant is not "bonded or bound" to any, save
Claimant's Master, Yahshua, the only begotten Son of the Living Creator, who became
Claimant's surety by way of Blood Sacrifice at the Price of thirty pieces of silver (a commercial
transaction), given into the hand of a hired liar and deceiver (a fiction), working in conjunction
with the Courts of that day, an estimated 2000 years ago. Therefore, Claimant cannot be induced
into any "body politic" contrary with sound Christian Doctrine instilled upon Claimant’s
conscience.

This Notice of Birthright is offered as Corrective NOTICE that any Certificates of Birth entered
into the fictional corporate world of commerce is based in fraud, propagated in fraud, brought
forward in deceit, and joined in deliberate and malicious trespass upon the conscience and free
will of a man bearing the Birthright of Jacob/Israel and Right of Soil.

This NOTICE of Birthright is Fair Notice and Warning for any and all Actors, Fictions, and
Corporate Representatives that the Natal Soil of this Child of the Jacob/Israel Birthright
was NOT a "Port of Entry" for any newly berthed "Legal Entity" to be entered into the fictional,
factional or corporate marketplace as bond, surety, equity, futures, chattel, stock, or trade
material, and stands as correction of any assumption, presumption, or position in any corporate
realm to the contrary.
As all jurisdiction flows from Right of Soil, please take Notice of the following: POLLARD v.
HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845), "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the
territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed... ...[B]ecause, the United
States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or
eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is
expressly granted... ...Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all
the territory within her limits, subject to the common law..."

Claimant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined.
*********************************************************************
. EXHIBIT R -

CLAIM OF “FAMOUS MARK”

Claimant herein declares his Claim of “Famous Mark” to be his own and not the property of any
other.
TITLE 15, CH 22, SUB CH III § 1125
§ 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
Release date: 2005-08-01
(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods,
uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,
connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities,
or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be
damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a
State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity.
Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions
of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement [idem sonanse] under this chapter for trade dress
not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the
burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
(b) Importation
Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be
imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States.
The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section
may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may
have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.
(c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks
(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon
such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s commercial
use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous
and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is
provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court
may consider factors such as, but not limited to—
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with
which the mark is used;
(C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;
(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;
(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used;
(F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the
marks’ owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;
(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and
(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20,
1905, or on the principal register. [Berth “registry” is the principal register of the Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.]
(2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled
only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 1116 of this title unless the person against whom
the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner’s reputation or to cause dilution
of the famous mark [NOTE: birth/berth certificate is worth "how much??" [11 million “credits”]
on world trade market, and, how many "good works" - "goods" have you provided to society?].
If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the
remedies set forth in sections 1117 (a) and 1118 of this title, subject to the discretion of the court
and the principles of equity.
(3) The ownership by a person ["personam", not "in persona"] of a valid registration under
the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a
complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by
another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of
the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or
promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(d) Cyberpiracy prevention
(1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal
name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services
of the parties, that person—
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as
a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is
identicalor confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is
identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section706 of title 18 or section220506
of title 36.
(B)
(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a
court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that
is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering
of any goods or services;
(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the
domain name;
(V) the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site
accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either
for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood
of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner
or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain
name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating
a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying
for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate
contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows
are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of
registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the
time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties;
and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is
not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the
court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of
the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this
paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of
the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person
is the domain name registrant or that registrant’s authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term “traffics in” refers to transactions that include, but are not
limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other
transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
(2)
(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial
district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name
authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if—
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and
Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c) of this section; and
(ii) the court finds that the owner—
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant
in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a
civil action under paragraph (1) by—
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the
registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the
registrar; and
(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.
(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in
the judicial district in which—
(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or
assigned the domain name is located; or
(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the
registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
(D)
(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the
forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of
the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the
owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar,
domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall—
(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court’s control and
authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court;
and
(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the
action, except upon order of the court.
(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for
injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless
disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.
(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under
paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any
other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other
jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE OF TRADE-NAME, TRADE-MARK

Copyright Notice: All rights reserved regarding common-law copyright of trade-name/trade-

mark, JOHN QUINCY JONES©—as well as any and all derivatives and variations in the
spelling of said tradename/trade-mark–Common Law Copyright© 1965 upon attainment of age
of majority by John-Quincy: Jones©. Said common-law tradename/trade-mark, JOHN QUINCY
JONES©, may neither be used, nor reproduced, neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner
whatsoever, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of John-Quincy:
Jones©, hereinafter “Secured Party.” With the Intent of being contractually bound, any
juristic person, as well as the agent of said juristic person, shall display, nor otherwise use in any
manner, any of the common-law trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES©, nor the
common-law copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, nor any variation in the spelling
of, JOHN QUINCY JONES©, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement
of Secured Party, as signified by Secured Party’s signature in blue ink. Secured Party neither
grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY
JONES©, and all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Secured Party is not now, nor has
Secured Party ever been, an accommodation party, nor a surety, for the purported debtor, i.e.,
“JOHN QUINCY JONES” nor for any derivative of, nor for any variation in the spelling of, said
name, nor for any other juristic person, and is so-indemnified and held harmless by Debtor,
i.e., “JOHN QUINCY JONES” in Hold-harmless and Indemnity Agreement No.
(UCC1)123456789, dated the Seventh Day of the Second Month in the Year of Our Lord Two
Thousand and Five, againstany and all claims, legal actions, orders, warrants, judgments,
demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits, costs, fines, liens, levies,
penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, as are due
and as might become due, now existing and as might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by,
imposed on, and incurred by Debtor for any and every reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever.

Selfexecuting Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized use: By this Copyright

Notice, both the juristic person and the agent of said juristic person, hereinafter jointly and
severally “User,” consent and agree that any use of JOHN QUINCY JONES© other than
authorized use as set forth above constitutes unauthorized use and counterfeiting of Secured
Party’s common-law copyrighted property and contractually binds User and renders this
Copyright Notice a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is
Secured Party, and signifies that User: (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in all of Users
assets, land and personal property, and all of User’s interest in assets, land, and personal
property, in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each occurrence of use of any of the
common-law-copyrighted trade-name/trade-mark JOHN QUINCY JONES©, as well as for each
and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of, and variations in the spelling of, JOHN
QUINCY JONES©, plus costs, plus triple damages; (2) authenticates this Security Agreement
wherein User is debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party, and wherein User pledges all
of User’s property; i.e., all assets, land, consumer goods farm products, inventory, equipment,
money, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letter-of-credit rights,
chattel paper, instruments, deposit accounts, accounts, documents, and general intangibles, and
all User’s interest in all such foregoing property, now owned and hereafter acquired, now
existing and hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing User’s contractual
obligation in favor of Secured Party for Users unauthorized use of Secured Party’s common-law
copyrighted property; (3) consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of a UCC Financing
Statement in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorder’s office, wherein User is
debtor and John-Quincy: Jones© is Secured Party; (4) consents and agrees that said UCC
Financing Statement described above in paragraph “(3)” is a continuing financing statement, and
further consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of any continuation statement necessary
for maintaining Secured Party’s perfected security interest in all of User’s property and interest
property pledged as collateral in this Security Agreement and described above in paragraph
“(2),” until User’s contractual obligation theretofore incurred has been fully
satisfied; (5) consents and agrees with Secured Party’s filing of any UCC Financing Statement,
as described above in paragraphs “(3)” and “(4),” as well as the filing of any Security
Agreement, as described above in paragraph “(2),” in the UCC filing office, as well as in any
county recorder’s office; (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings described in
paragraphs “(4)” and “(5)” above are not, and may not be considered, bogus, and that User will
not claim that any such filing is bogus; (7) waives all defenses; and (8) appoints Secured Party as
Authorized Representative for User, effective upon User’s default re User’s contractual
obligations in favor of Secured Party as set forth below under “Payment Terms” and “Default
Terms,” granting Secured Party full authorization and power for engaging in any and all actions
on behalf of User, as Secured Party, in Secured Party’s sole discretion deems appropriate, and
User further consents and agrees that this appointment of Secured Party as Authorized
Representative for User, effective upon User’s default is irrevocable and coupled with a security
interest.

User further consents and agrees with all of the following additional terms of Self-executing
Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use: Payment Terms: In accordance
with fees for unauthorized use of JOHN QUINCY JONES© as set forth above, User hereby
consents and agrees that User shall pay Secured Party all
unauthorized-use fees in full within ten (10) days of the date User is sent Secured Party’s
invoice, hereinafter “invoice,” itemizing said fees. Default Terms: In event of non-payment in
full of all unauthorized use fees by User within ten (10) days of date invoice is sent. User shall be
deemed in default and: (a) all of User’s property and interest in property pledged as collateral by
User, as described above in paragraph “(2),” immediately becomes, i.e., is property of Secured
Party; (b) Secured Party is appointed User’s Authorized Representative as set forth above in
paragraph “(8)”; and (C) User consents and agrees that Secured Party may take possession of, as
well as otherwise dispose of in any manner that Secured Party, in Secured Party’s sole discretion,
deems appropriate, including, but not limited by, sale at auction at any time following User’s
default, and without further notice, any and all of User’s former property and interest in property,
as described above in paragraph “(2),” formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of
Secured Party, in respect of this “Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of
Unauthorized Use,” that Secured Party, again in Secured Party’s sole discretion, deems
appropriate.

Terms for Curing Default: Upon event of default, as set forth above under “Default Terms,”
irrespective of any and all of User’s former property and interest in property, in the possession
of, as well as disposed of by, Secured Party, as authorized above under “Default Terms,” User
may cure User’s default regarding the remainder of User’s former property and interest in
property formerly pledged as collateral that is neither in the possession of, nor otherwise
disposed of, by Secured Party within twenty (20) days of date of User’s default only by payment
in full.

Terms of Strict Foreclosure: Users non-payment in full of all unauthorized-use fees itemized in
Invoice within said twenty (20) day period for curing default as set forth above under “Terms for
Curing Default” authorizes Secured Party’s immediate non-judicial strict foreclosure on any and
all remaining property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral by User, now
property of Secured Party, which is not in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of by,
Secured Party upon expiration of said twenty (20) day default-curing period. Ownership subject
to common-law copyright and UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement filed with the
UCC filing office.
Record Owner: John-Quincy: Jones© Autograph Common Law Copyright ©1965. Unauthorized
use of any of “John-Quincy: Jones©” incurs same unauthorized-use fees as those associated
with JOHN QUINCY JONES© as set forth above in paragraph “(1)” under “Self-executing
Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use.”

***********************************

EXHIBIT S – Claim of Ownership

CERTIFICATE - Claim of Ownership via Warehouse Receipt

I, John-Quincy: Jones, hereinafter known as “Claimant,” do herein place Claim of

Ownership over, upon and against any, and all, facets, aspects, phases and relations of all
actions of Real Existence and True Character signified by a/any piece of parchment, paper or
electronic data entry that makes reference to the Living Man of the Male Gender herein referred
to as Claimant by any Name, Title, Number (or, group of numbers) or Assignment other than
Claimants’ Christian Appellation.

All Fictions, Legal Entities and Vessels in commerce that make any reference to Claimant are
herein claimed as “Collateral” and property belonging to Claimant.

According to Barron’s Dictionary of Banking Terms, a certificate is a “paper establishing an

ownership claim.” The registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all
states adopting the practice by 1933.

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse receipts”, now printed
on banknote paper. The items included on a warehouse receipt, as described at Section 7-202 of
the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions,
which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:
~1. The location of the warehouse where the goods are stored… (residence) Claimant was born
of a woman on, not “in,” Douglas County on Missouri State and Claimant has no “residence,”
but “Lives” within His own carbon based body of Flesh, Bone and Blood.
~2. The date of issue of the receipt…(“Date issued”) Claimants’ Nativity was (according to
records in Family Bible) September 09, 1944, however, Informants issued, or caused to be
issued, a fictitious Warehouse Receipt stating a “berth-date” of a newly launched “vessel” in
commerce on January 15, 1945.
~3. The consecutive number of the receipt…(found on the certificate, usually in red) File
number123-45 is found on the “Notification of Birth Registration” that was recorded at the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Subsequent
“copy” of “Birth Certificate” shows State File Number 124-44-****** with a “bond” number on
the back side, lower right corner,******.
~4. A description of the goods or of the packages containing them… (Name, sex, DOB, etc.)
Claimants’ Christian Appellation was not found on said Warehouse Receipt; however, multiple
misnomers of “similar sound” were on the face of said document. One can comprehend that said
document is making reference to Claimant through mention of sex, place of birth, etc.; therefore,
Claimant makes Claim to such collateral.
~5. The signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent… (clerk,
doctor, state registrar, etc.) J.C. Capt, Director of the Census signed on the lower left corner of
said document. An indeterminate “person” signed as “Special Agent, Bureau of the Census.”

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., “Birth and marriage certificates now appear to at
least qualify as “warehouse receipts” under the Uniform Commercial Code.”

Warehouse receipt. “…A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a
negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security.”

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. [In
order to “borrow,” collateral must be “pledged.” A “Maxim” of Law states that one cannot
pledge what it does not “own.”]

All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated “warehouse receipts” for births and
marriages in order to pledge a fictional “vessel” they created on paper as collateral against those
loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve’s banks. The “Full Faith and
Credit” of the American people is said to be that which back the nation’s debt. That simply
means the American people’s ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its
laborers (slaves), the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property
to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources – “human resources,” that is.

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of humans began on July 14, 1862,
when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves
on a “per head” basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle, chattel) continues today with
our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to
back it.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without
United States, 28 USC 1746(1), that the foregoing is true and
correct.
L.S.
by___________________________________authorized representative
********************************************************

EXHIBIT Q(2) – Gov. as Trustee, NOT Beneficiary

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (of the Public) ARE TRUSTEES

Am Juris Prud - public ‘officers’ ARE trustees

:* *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247* “As expressed otherwise, the powers
delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of
the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.
[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and
whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,
and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees
relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.
[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose
behalf he or she serves.
[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.
[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those
of a private individual.
[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who
tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is
against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the
meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute.

See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate
concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is
a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear
before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of
fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)

****************************************************************

EXHIBIT O – Christian Appellation

Statutory Declaration of True Name

and
NOTICE and Declaration of Law and Jurisdiction

I am recognized and known by my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family. If

I choose to respond, it is only to such Christian Appellation. I am not a corporation, nor a
"person", therefore, no legislative court shall ever obtain "personal jurisdiction" over me.

I cannot use copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against any legislative, or
executive, body, therefore, no legislative, nor executive, body can use said copyrighted codes,
statutes, rules, or regulations against me; and, said "court" fails to obtain "in rem jurisdiction"
over me.

I have no "residence" within any geographical jurisdiction, I do not "re-side" within any political
jurisdiction, and I am not a magistrate of any federal foreign fictional government, so I have
no entourage for any "residency". I keep house within the geographical Missouri Republic, or
in whatever Republic I so choose, therefore, there is no "state within a state" of federal
jurisdiction, nor is there a political overlay of federal area or postal Zone Improvement Plan,
therefore, there is no "federal jurisdiction" over me, nor is there obtainable any "venue
jurisdiction" over me.

I recognize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as contraband and gambling tokens, issued,
maintained, and controlled within the Private realm of a Private corporation, therefore, I do not
own, handle, nor utilize any of them outside the Rule of Necessity, which is a Rule of Common
Law, originating well before the establishment of the British Colonies on American soil.
Therefore, using only barter, silver, and where absolutely necessary under said ancient rule,
Federal Reserve Notes (which are not of substance), no legislative court or executive agency
shall obtain any "substantive jurisdiction" over me.

I am who I say I am, not who, or what (person), any corporate administrator says I am. Since
there is no lawful money of exchange available to "pay" any debt, or to "pay" any fines, fees,
licenses, penalties, court costs, etc., I cannot be a contemnor, as I am in contempt of nothing.
No Private Man, nor corporate body or agency thereof, can demand that I do the impossible. As
it is impossible to "pay" for anything, no fictional corporate governmental body can demand that
I do the impossible, therefore, no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any
"legislative or executive jurisdiction" over me.
I am not aware of the existence of any judicial branch of any level of true Republican
government nor is any available to me, therefore, no "judicial jurisdiction" is obtainable over me.

I am not a U.S. citizen, a United States citizen, a 14th Amendment citizen, nor in any other
manner do I "cite-I-Zen". I am, therefore, NOT an enemy of the "state" under any fictional
corporate charter regulations and no "corporate jurisdiction" is obtainable over me to condemn
me to a category of enemy of any "state".

My Constitution is the Holy Writ and I claim only one "color", that being the color of white in
the form of a "flag of truce", making known to all that I have no controversy with any. I have no
"license" to operate contrary to true law. I have no "permit" to temporarily suspend true law,
therefore, no "Admiralty jurisdiction" is obtainable over me.

I observe only the True Laws brought forward by the Ancient and Holy Writ, engulfing all
established within principles of the Ten Commandments and the later Commandments to love
the Lord My God with all my mind, soul, and body; and to, love my neighbor as myself; this is
my political establishment, therefore, no fictional political jurisdiction is obtainable over me.

I exist only in, and respond only to, my Christian Appellation, John-Quincy: Jones. I do not
recognize, nor give cognizance to, any fictional corporate entity, nor do I recognize any of their
agents. No fictional, quasi-governmental agent/agency can obtain parity with me; therefore,
no jurisdiction of agency is obtainable over me.

I am in my True Character, a Private Man upon the soil, maintaining only as a private man can,
the Right of Soil. I amnot a reflection, image, fiction, or other "person". I own and maintain my
own "person" for purpose of contracting in the realm of commerce in a lawful and upright
manner. My word is my bond when dealing with men. I offer my "signature" when contracting
with fictional entities in commerce. Said "signature" (sig=no nature=alive) means no nature,
thus, not alive - it is a bond offered into debt/death. For this reason such "scribble" is called
"cursive writing", cursed communication with the dead, the fiction. By being responsible for my
own "person" under True Law, I exercise my "personal rights" referred to by Thomas Jefferson,
and maintain my lawful standing, impeccable under law, I do not yield "Character jurisdiction"
over me, or my "persons".

Respectfully Presented,

by _________________________ agent
John-Quincy: Jones, sui juris
.

********************************************************************

EXHIBIT Q – Beneficiary to the Original Trust (Correcting the Records)

Introductory Statement:

The lawful Trust, established within the parameters of Trust Doctrine (see EXHIBIT E), was
converted, under unlawful conversion, into a Dead “Person’s” Estate and into that of a Debtor.
Under the law, Debt and Death mean the same; Debt means Dead. Various Treaties between the
United States and offshore foreign countries often appoint Emissaries and Ambassadors to
represent the “death” of the UNITED STATES. Therefore, for all practical purposes, Grantor is
deemed to be the Executor of the Estate, rather than the Beneficiary to the Trust.

For purposes of this, and associated/annexed documents, Beneficiary means Executor.

Certain established parameters of language are:

VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits

VALUE IS ACQUIRED: [as per U.C.C. 1-201(44)]
1. With an exchange of “Rights” for a binding commitment to extend credit;
2. As Security for Satisfaction of a pre-existing Claim;
3. By Accepting Delivery to a pre-existing contract for Purchase;
4. Exchange for any consideration to support a contract;
5. An Interest in a thing/issue is given a Transferable Value;
6. Subrogation places a transfer of Rights from the Visible to the Invisible;

The “Right” of Authority is through a Birth Certificate issued by the STATE and ACCEPTED
FOR VALUE; My acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States
of America (Article 2, Section 1), is a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill
his Promise as Executive Trustee.

The President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the President
(executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office. That
is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in
his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a constitutional oath.

“Value” is anything recognized as a pledge or the result of a pledge. The birth certificate is the
Resultant Trust of the President’s oath. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would just be
evidence of the obligation every Unites States citizen owes to the United States. Without that one
oath, the birth certificate would not be evidence of the obligation the United States owes to the
people.

On the public side, the birth certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S.
citizen to be a surety for the United States. On the public side, it is security for the pledge of
allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by its citizens.

On the private side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a promise made by the President to the
people. On the privateside, it is security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the
People as beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the baby’s physical description that was
symbolically delivered by an informant (Mother) to the United States. The setoff resulting from
accepting an instrument for value is a distribution from the trust.

SUPPORTING NOTES:

Remember, when you “accept” an Oath, you consummate an agreement, a contract. When you
accept for “value”, you are accepting the consideration the United States has offered to you as
evidence of an obligation it has to you as a beneficiary; as well as whatever consideration is
offered on the instrument that is being transferred to you through the United States citizen you
represent. The United States is humbling itself by asking you to give it assistance. It is applying
for credit on every instrument that is issued or transferred for value. If you just receive one of
these instruments [even a utility “bill”] without accepting it for value and returning it for value,
the presumption is that you intend to pay it. You can pay it with a check, or you can pay it with
your prepaid account. It is up to you, but you have to pay it immediately, or you will be deemed
to be in dishonor. If you A4V, you can use a distribution from the trust to “pay” the instrument.
If you just retain it or argue about the existence or amount of the request, you will pay it with a
check, tangible property, or your body.

Did the United States offer a birth certificate to you? Did you receive it? Did you accept it for
value and return it as a security? If you do not accept it for value and deposit it as an asset, you
have voluntarily waived rights to a distribution that is available to you. In a purely commercial
system, rights are remedies. Parties to a modern commercial transaction need remedies in the
event one of them breaches the terms of the agreement. The birth certificate is a remedy, and
represents an antecedent claim you have against the United States. It is also evidence of a
preexisting contract. It represents the prepaid account you have available to you for setoffs.
Acceptance is an agreement and leads to a binding contract. If you don’t set the terms of that
binding contract, the United States will.

Beneficiary NOTICES Presidential Delegates:

DHS (executive)
Sec of Treasury (legislative)
DOJ (judicial)
Sec of State (administrative)
ALL is in reference to a “Pre-existing Contract,” a Trust Receipt, known as a “Certificate of
Live Birth,” to wit:
1. A person (corporate United States) gives value (certificated security = birth
certificate) for rights (to create money on the signature of the man = borrow
from the people) as security (promise not to deny or disparage rights of the people)
for satisfaction (acknowledgement of obligation to people) of a preexisting claim
(beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).
2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value (signature on application for birth
certificate) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction
(distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the
Constitution).
3. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (Constitution) for rights (to be recognized
internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction
(acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay
international creditors).
4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value (Article VI oath) for rights (to hold
an office) as security (promise to support “this” constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a
preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).
5. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for rights (to
be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to abide by
terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a preexisting
claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy).
6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as
security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance)
of a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

Make a note of this – The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath, is the
ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the
HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate). It is the holder who acquires a security interest in
the instrument, IF he takes the instrument for value. It is not the issuer who has the security
interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability.

Judicial court orders can transfer rights in property, creating a security interest in the title to the
subject property, but that is not how it works with an instrument that is issued for value. An order
for a judicial court-created security interest is not the type of instrument that a transferee would
take for value; but, an order for an executive court-created security interest is a type of
instrument that a transferee would take for value. United States courts are not judicial courts;
they are territorial courts and were created through Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 by the power
granted to the Congress to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” Their orders do
not result in security interests through judicial proceedings.

To avoid fraud, the instrument has to be issued for value. It gives the transferee (a U.S. citizen) a
security interest in the instrument. The only piece of paper a man has the is proof of the security
interest he has is the birth certificate. It has no value on the private side, but it does on the public
side if he deposits with an appropriate banker, who can then be the man’s securities
intermediary, and the man can be the entitlement holder. This is explained in UCC Article 8 in
the 500 series.

An Order that a securities intermediary deposit the birth certificate makes it a security. It appears
that the birth certificate is not an actual security until it passes to a second holder, i.e., from the
issuer (State of Missouri) to the Department of Commerce of the United States (the Department
of Transportation, Bureau of the Census). The United States uses the certificate until you decide
you want to use it. You have the priority right to it as a security for the obligation the United
States has to you. It was issued to you.

A bond can be given written against the security (bond = birth certificate) he is holding. A
promissory note can be written against the bond that is written against the security. Such a
promissory note would be an order from the entitlement holder to the securities intermediary to
use the security he is maintaining for a specific purpose.

UCC 8-102(a)(8) “Entitlement order ” means a notification communicated to a securities

intermediary directing transfer or redemption of a financial asset to which the entitlement holder
has a security entitlement.
UCC 8-505. Duty of Securities Intermediary with Respect to Payments and Distributions.
(a) a securities intermediary shall take action to obtain a payment or distribution made by the
issuer of a financial asset. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if:
(1) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement
holder and the securities intermediary; or
(2) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance
with reasonable commercial standards to attempt to obtain the payment or distribution.
(b) A securities intermediary is obligated to its entitlement holder for a payment or distribution
made by the issuer of a financial asset if the payment or distribution is received by the securities
intermediary.

Since securities intermediaries have obligations to entitlement holders, the securities

intermediaries must have capacity to act. That is done under the premise that a securities
intermediary is declared in the commercial code to be a purchaser for value. The indirect holding
system of the United States would not function as expected if the securities intermediary did not
have capacity to act. Without the rights of an owner or a purchaser, the securities intermediary
would be powerless to act in the intended manner.

UCC 8-116 Securities Intermediary as Purchaser For Value

A securities intermediary that receives a financial asset and establishes a security entitlement to
the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder is a purchaser for value of the financial
asset.

UCC 3-303. Value and consideration

A. An instrument is issued or transferred for value if:
3. The instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent
claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due;

“Giving value” from 1-201 is not the same as “transferring for value” from 3-303. The transferor
(issuer) in 303 usually wants to get a valuable consideration back for an instrument he issues for
value, and he wants a new contract on which he or the person he represents is the creditor.

When an instrument issued for value is received and retained, it is accepted as though the
receiver has given it a blank endorsement, and the transfer of liability has been successful. A
blank endorsement waives all the defects, and the main defect in an instrument issued for value
is that there is no security attached to it. If it were not for the inherent security interest in the
instrument itself, the whole project would be fraud.

The issuer is not giving value; he is seeking value. The issuer is not giving consideration; he
is seekingconsideration. These abnormalities can be cured if the transferee gives it a qualified
endorsement as a payment and returns the payment for closure of the account. After acceptance
through a blank endorsement, the issuer’s consideration is presumed, and the endorser is liable
on the instrument. A commitment (implied or express) by the transferee (to take on the liability)
through a general acceptance would be a valuable consideration on his part, and would result in a
binding contract. He is then obligated on the instrument to make immediate payment.
If you cannot tell on the face of the instrument if it is a promise or an order, it can be treated as
either. When the payee receives a check, it is a promise. When he negotiates it by endorsing it
and delivering to a bank, it is an order.

Until someone gives an endorsement, an instrument issued for value is not negotiable. If the
transferee makes the instrument negotiable as a security with a blank endorsement, the transferee
must pay it. He can give it a qualified endorsement by accepting it for value, to make it a
payment. When it is subsequently presented to a third party (banker), it is an order from the
maker to the third party to pay it. The instrument issued for value becomes the very payment that
pays it. If the transferee gives it a blank endorsement (by his silence) and does not return it with
his check, he makes the instrument his promise and also makes the instrument negotiable as a
security. Whoever has a right to enforce it can negotiate it. If the transferee has no idea what to
do with it, he might inadvertently make it a security and commit himself to pay it. It is his
choice. There is a price for ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity; it is lack of knowledge. If an
instrument is issued and transferred for value, the person who is the transferee can make it the
issuer’s note (promise) and the transferee’s draft (order). The transferee can be the one entitled to
enforce the instrument if he gives it a proper endorsement. If he does not, the transferor is the
person entitled to enforce the instrument, and he will enforce it.

A case designed to seize property of a U.S. citizen is called a penal action. It is not civil, and it
is not criminal. It is based on violation of statutes that were implemented to facilitate
collections from U.S. citizens to pay the national debt. Libels of information are used to obtain
arrest warrants from the clerks of executive courts so the proceeding can be commenced. These
are not cases; they are proceedings.

When an indictment (true bill), which is actually a libel of information, or other bill is presented
to a U.S. citizen by the United States, an obligation on a preexisting claim against the United
States (national debt) is being transferred to the transferee (surety - defendant or debtor). The bill
is issued for value. The endorser is expected to create the “money,” both for the payment and for
the security. The United States wants the U.S. citizen to supply the value. There is no actual
security, antecedent claim, or preexisting contract behind it. No money is needed if the transferee
treats it as a payment and sends it to the issuer’s banker with a qualified endorsement. This puts
the endorser in the driver’s seat and makes him the party entitled to enforce the instrument. On
the other hand, no money is needed if the transferee treats it as a security by giving it a blank
endorsement and keeping (holding) it. This puts the issuer or his principal in the driver’s seat and
entitles the principal to enforce the instrument.

Since 1933, the only money in circulation is money of account that is created on demand at the
time it is needed to satisfy an immediate need. If a bill is issued with nothing to secure it, it has
to be issued for value, because the money to pay it (promise to back it) has not been created. If
the transferee receives a bill and does not pay it immediately, he is in default. Some say the
reason it cannot be paid is because no check to pay it was included with the bill. The instrument
is the check if it is taken as a payment, made negotiable with a proper endorsement, and turned
into a draft (issuer’s order). If the transferee accepts it for value and returns it to the issuer’s
banker (Secretary of the Treasury) as payment to balance the books and close the account, he is
not in default. Since it was issued for value, and transferred for value, it can be accepted for
value. To be a holder in due court, the endorser must take (accept) the instrument for value. See
3-302, Holder in due course above.

Under Article 3, if an instrument is issued for value, it is also issued for consideration. The issuer
either gives the consideration through the instrument, or issues the instrument for value to
receive the consideration from the transferee. When an instrument is accepted (taken) for value,
it can be returned to pay the bill, and the transaction is finished. All the required bookkeeping
entries for an accrual bookkeeping system can be made based on the offer for value and the
acceptance for value. This bookkeeping cannot be done if the bill is not returned with an
appropriate endorsement though. If the bill is not returned, the bookkeeper has an unbalanced
account. All accounts must be closed at the end of the business day in an accrual system. An
unbalanced account necessitates entries into the accounts payable and accounts receivable
ledgers. If you are the cause of a payable, you are also responsible for the receivable, so
your retention of the instrument is deemed to be a blank endorsement. If you do not balance that
account, an executive court will do it for you. That usually results in a statutory penalty being
applied against you through the U.S. citizen you represent.

Much more could be said, but for the sake of brevity, is available upon request.

*************************************************

EXHIBIT L – Demand for Exchange of Value

31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart A, § 103.11

(ll) Transmittor. The sender of the first transmittal order in a transmittal of funds. The term
transmittor includes an originator, except where the transmittor's financial institution is a
financial institution or foreign financial agency other than a bank or foreign bank.

(vv) Stored value. Funds or monetary value represented in digital electronics format (whether or
not specially encrypted) and stored or capable of storage on electronic media in such a way as to
be retrievable and transferable electronically.

VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits

Claimant has no record or evidence that True and Honest Value and/or related Services has ever
been manifested on behalf of Claimant, the Living Man, as per:

On March 3, 1851 Congress passed a law called "The Public Liability Statute." As a
result, ship (the numbered vessel registered after the “application for a Birth
Certificate”) owners (the corporate U.S.S.A.) are now exempt from damages to goods while
involved in “commerce;” now, the shippers are responsible for such goods under maritime law,
whereby “we” are responsible for any loss which occurs while involved in maritime commerce,
which is a gambling policy, which is an “insurance” tontine scheme which “wagers” for profit.
All insurance falls under Maritime Law. This was/is a cunning and despicable plot to re-institute
a tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve. This is FRAUD.

When a “person,” a vessel that may enter commerce, commences action into the credit system
(which is really a “Debt” System) of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve) they have
involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability
for the payment of debt. The joint venture is the use of the communal credit (debt), wherein an
insurable interest has been created. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax, right to
work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities are about. These are not taxes,
but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit. Anything that involves Federal
Reserve Notes is under Maritime Law because FRNs are an insurance premium.

In De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that insurance
is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction. Maritime or Admiralty Law now
prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit policy. All the Law and equity
has been dismantled and replaced by awagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law. I
could display well over a dozen case cites that explain the use of FRNs is “wagering”, but for
space and brevity I will not provide.

Remembering that FRNs are Negotiable Instruments, one viable defense against such a Beast as
herein discussed is to challenge it at every stage of its offense. The UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii)
affirms... ...one of the other defenses is that the instrument is illegal, when that instrument has
been deemed to mean for collecting usury or gambling debts. [Usury equals INTEREST; it is
also a gamble]

The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15) is bankrupt on the authority of Perry v.
United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an "obligor/grantor" to the Federal
Reserve Bank created by the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 265, Chapter
6.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law, not Public Law
(see ExhibitK - Interlocking Directorates for full explanation), nor Public Policy, as in reference
to a Mr. Lewis which was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. government for
damages. The court ruled, "...that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks
are private corporations, the federal government could not be held responsible."- Lewis v.
U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982).

Congress (having exclusive jurisdiction over that ten mile square territory known as Washington,
D.C.) agreed in the Federal Reserve Act to give that bank system a paramount and "permanent"
(ex-warranto 1913 to 1933) lien on the United States (UCC 9-307(h), the United States is
located IN Washington, D.C.) assets and the USER of said bank notes by the authority of 38
Stat. 265, Ch. 6, pp. 266-267. The USERagrees, as a "parole promise," to accept the status as an
obligor/grantor and to hypothecate all "his" assets to the United States and thereby to the
Federal Reserve which is merely a private corporation, and not "federal." The Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) has a collection agreement as a "USER" fee for the USE of said bank notes (see
Interlocking Directorates).

I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of Federal Reserve Notes as I cannot consent and do
not assent to be an obligor/grantor to said Federal Reserve Bank. I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT
TO" the use of said bank notes on the authority of MacLeod v. Hoover, (June 22, 1925) No.
26395, S. Ct. Louisiana; 105 So.Rptr. 305. That court citing U.S. Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10
Wheaton 338; 6 L.Ed. 343.

Therefore, I refuse for good cause shown, any, and all, corporate and/or governmental
agents/agencies and participating affiliates, to induce me to be a tort feasor to the Constitution
for The United States of America where at Article 1, Section 10, it states, "No State shall emit
bills of credit; make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts."

The Congress of the United States of America, by the authority of the Gold Bullion Act of 1985,
Public Law 99-185, December 17, 1985, 99 Statutes 1177, has given its intent that all Americans
can no longer be forced into an obligor/grantor status to said Federal Reserve Bank Notes.

There is no debating the established fact that: Federal Reserve Notes of Debt can be made legal
tender for parties of/with a relationship to/with the Federal Government; i.e., those persons who
have a nexus/benefit such as; federal government employees, recipient of federal largesse,
elected federal office holders, or those who choose to use Federal Reserve Notes, either
knowingly or unknowingly, but states and individualscannot be compelled to use Federal
Reserve Notes. [I am an Individual and, in a certain sense, a foreign state.]

All Administrators, Agents, and Agencies must take judicial notice of TEXAS CODE (imported
under “Equal Footing Doctrine”) Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures, to wit:
"All recognizance’s, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound
to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a pecuniary character, shall be
collected in the lawful money of the United States only," and,

Nevada. NRS 99.010 Dollar, cent and mill to be money of account. The money of account of this
state shall be the dollar, cent and mill. All the accounts in the public offices, other public
accounts, and all proceedings in courts, shall be kept and had in conformity with this section,"
and,

Nevada. NRS 99.030 Obligation, judgments or executions payable in legal money. After
February 15, 1893, all official bonds and undertakings, and all obligations of debt, judgments or
executions stated in terms of dollars and to be paid in money shall be payable in legal money
authorized by the Congress of the United States," and,

Title 31 USC Section 371:

"The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or
tenths, cents or hundredth part of a dollar; and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had
in conformity to this regulation," and,

Title 31 USC Section 311:

"It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as
standard money...."

THE COINAGE ACT OF 1792 IS STILL CURRENT AND EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT A

DOLLAR IS.

Title 31 USC § 408 prohibits the redemption of any currency into gold and Title 31
USC § 405(a)-3 prohibits the redemption of any United States currency dollar for dollar into
gold and silver. So, the law itself prohibits Affiant from using any “Lawful Money.” And, for a
check to be a negotiable instrument, it must contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum
certain in money and be payable on demand or at a definite time (UCC 3-103 (b) (c)). Thus,
neither the bank nor this Affiant is able to comply with the law of money and cannot be held a
contemnor. Currency, “Money” as it is commonly known, or thought to be, is "contraband" at
statute!!! Affiant has thoroughly invoked “Rule Of Necessity” for any “mistakes” made by
way of usage of Federal Reserve Notes.
Also, TITLE 31 USC, § 306.10, 2 - Taxpayer identifying numbers are not required for foreign
governments,nonresident aliens not engaged in trade or business within the United States…
DEEPER FRAUD: SUPPORTING NOTES
"The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be construed to mean
gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152. Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5 Phila. 366.
404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879); Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835), and,

"Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars." U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk. And,

"Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness and promise of

payment." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al, 223 N.Y.S.
481.

""Money" does not include treasury notes". Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536, and,

"In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for
embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling greenbacks or national currency
notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And,

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part of the
circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be considered as money; but, in the strict sense
of the term, they are not included therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C. 58,60. And,

""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any money, the
property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include bank bills, for
strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated as such." Johnson v.
State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325. And,

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute making it
an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment charging that the defendant played at
a game of faro for money--cannot be sustained by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such
an indictment be sustained by proof that property was bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And,

"The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another any
money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and violence, and with intent to
steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St. 422,426.

*******************************************************
In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones
Who may be NOTICED at:
C/O 123 West Columbus Street
Somewhere, Missouri Republic
Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

NOTICE OF:
DIPLOMATIC PROTEST
(To be applied in conjunction with NOTICE OF
ADVERSE CLAIM and NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION)

Public international law is proper law regarding unilateral international transactions

or 'acts' concerning subjects and objects of international law:

Note: “Renunciation” as follows means “Expatriation” from de facto oligarchy and

“Repatriation” into the de jure Republic.

As international acts concerning the public law succession to sovereignties, the proper la
w applicable to such dynastic renunciations and their proper interpretation is public intern
ational law concerning subjects of international law rather than the law of the place whe
re the renunciation happens to be signed:

A renunciation is an unilateral International transaction subject to public international law

as the proper law: See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, Nos. 486 &
488.

Similar to treaties, the municipal or domestic law of the place where a renunciation conc
erning the succession to subjects of public international law is made does not constitute
the proper law of that renunciation: See Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), 100-
101; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, Nos. 21
&22; Article 13 of The Declaration of Rights and Duties of States, 9 June 1949 by the
International Law Commission of the United Nations; 1887 U. S, Foreign Relations 751
at 753. See also Articles 27, 46, and 47 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties.
The same is true of any treaty: The proper law of that treaty is public international law
rather than the municipal (domestic) law of the place where the treaty was signed. Th
us, a treaty may properly affect international rights in a manner which might not be rec
ognised for private law rights under the municipal law of the place where that treaty wa
s signed -
- the treaty as an international act concerning subjects and objects of international law b
eing governed by public international law, not the local municipal law.

The validity of dynastic renunciations referencing subjects of public international law is s

ubject only to the peremptory norms of international law. See Lord McNair, Law of Tr
eaties (1961), pp. 213-
236. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, p. 417. See also Article 53 of the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Similar to treaties, the renunciation of rights to subjects of international law are governed
by the canons of construction applicable to treaties and international agreements.

Survival of de jure Sovereignty and Governments-in-Exile:

Under the doctrines of public international law a ruler who is deprived of the government
of
his country by either an invader or revolutionaries remains the legitimate de jure Soverei
gn of that Country while the de facto regime set up by the revolutionaries or the invade
r is considered an "usurper", both constitutionally and internationally. See Hugo Grotius
De jure belli ac pacis, libri Tres, Book I, Chapter 4, Nos. 15-19.

Such de jure possession of sovereignty continues so long as the de jure ruler or govern
ment does not surrender his sovereignty to the usurper. See Johann Wolfgang Textor, Sy
nopsis Juris Gentium, Chapter 10, Nos. 9-11.

Upon the fall, dispossession,

or usurpation of a monarchy, the de jure legal rights to the succession of that monarchy
may be kept alive indefinitely through the legal vehicle of making diplomatic protests a
gainst the usurpation. See Emerich Vattel, Le Droit des gens, Book II, Chapter II, Nos.
145-146.

Such Claimants are de jure Sovereigns and, as such, Head of the Government-in-
Exile of their usurped country.
Governments-in-Exile are
subjects of public international law, and matters relating to them are within the scope of
the jurisdiction of public international law as the applicable proper law ... rather than th
e law of the place where that Government-in-
Exile may be located. See Whitman, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, pp. 921-
930. F.
E. Oppenheim, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," 36 American Journal of Internati
onal Law (1942), pp. 568-595. Oppenheim-
Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, No. 144.

The public international law regarding the legal effect of protests against the usurpation
of sovereignty applies to republics as well as to monarchies, democracies, or
oligarchies: The United States of America refused to recognise the 1939 Soviet usurpati
on of the three Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia
, and Lithuania. This facilitated the maintenance of Governments-in-
Exile of the Baltic Republics and the maintenance of embassies in Washington, D.
C., which persisted through the Cold War Era until these countries managed to
recover their independence.

Accordingly, matters pertaining to de jure Governments-in-

Exile are matters of public international law. The de jure sovereignty of a state which
has been usurped by a foreign conqueror is not extinguished by such usurpation but surv
ives as long as such sovereignty is kept alive by competent diplomatic protests. See P
hilip Marshall Brown, "Sovereignty in Exile," 35 American Journal of International Law
(1941), p. 666-668.

Exiled Sovereigns and Governments choice of law that of usurped state to govern p
olitical and public acts:

Under public international law a Government-in-

Exile, monarchical or republican, is deemed to have the implied constitutional power to
perform all normal acts of state ... including those acts which by its own constitution
would require the consent of an organ of government, such as a parliament, the congress,
senate, and the higher Supreme Court of the
People, which are at present suspended due to the conditions arising from a usurpation o
f sovereignty. See F.
E. Oppenheim, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," 36 American Journal of Internatio
nal Law (1942), pp. 568 at 581-582.

In such cases the choice of law by the parties making the renunciation of dynastic right
s concerning sovereignties is the public law of that former State rather than the law of t
he place where the renunciation was signed.
Choice of law is very common in private law commercial law contracts: A grain suppli
er located in Argentina shipping wheat to a purchaser in Russia upon a Liberian ship wi
ll commonly contract that the law relating to the shipment of the wheat will be British l
aw (because British shipping law has been so well
interpreted) even though neither the buyer, seller or the shipper has any 'contact' with th
e United Kingdom. In all such cases courts will apply the law of choice as the substanti
ve law governing that contract as the proper law applicable to that contract rather than t
he law of the place where the contract was signed, the goods were
delivered, or the nationality of the vessel making delivery.

Thus, if a Government-in-Exile located abroad (say the Governments-in-

Exile of one of the three Baltic Republics during the Cold War Era) makes a public law
act concerning its former State which has been usurped (as were the three Baltic Repub
lics by the Soviet Union), the legal validity of the acts of that Government-in-
Exile are governed by the public or constitutional law of that usurped State rather tha
n by the law of the place where the Government-in-Exile happens to be located.

Survival of private law rights acquired under former sovereign:

The fall, revolution, or usurpation of a former government or state brings into play the i
nternational law of state succession to govern resulting legal affairs: Briefly, within the
usurped State the public law of the former sovereign governing constitutional and public
institutional matters must, of necessity, fall. However, the statutory law of the former S
overeign survives to govern private legal rights acquired or 'vested' under such statutor
y law of the former Sovereign. As 'vested' or acquired private law legal rights, such su
rvive the change or succession of sovereign. Such 'vested' private law legal rights must
be recognised by the new or usurping sovereign.

The general proposition of public international law is that the municipal law of a countr
y is not changed by a change of sovereignty. Private law rights acquired or 'vesting' un
der the law of the former sovereign remain valid after state succession and continue to b
e governed by the law of the former Sovereign applicable at the time when such private
law rights originally 'vested' or were acquired ... notwithstanding the fact that the form
er Sovereign has been de facto replaced.

In support of this proposition see the decisions of The Hague "World Court, the Perman
ent Court of International Justice in the case of the German Settlers in Poland, P.C.I.J.,
Series B, No. 6, Advisory Opinion No. 8, Annual Digest, 1923-
1924, Case No. 37.; Sopron-
Koszeg Local Railway Company Case, Lega of Nations, Official Journal, 1929, p. 1359;
American Journal of International law, Vol. XXIV (1930) pp. 164-
174; Annual Digest, 1929-
1930, Case No. 34; E. Thalheimer v. Yugoslav State before the Hungarian-
Yugoslav Mixed Arbitral Tribunal on 6 Sept 1928, Recueil, VIII, p. 579, Annual Digest,
1927-
1928, Case no. 60; State Succession (Notarial Act) Case, before the Austrian Supreme C
ourt in Civil Matters decided 13 May 1919, Annual Digest, 1919-
1922, Case No. 40; Occupation of Crete Case, the Greek Court of Cassation, Annual Di
gest, 1925-
1926, Case No. 69; Heirs of the Prince Mohammed Selim v. The Government of Palesti
ne,, Annual Digest 1935-1937, Case No. 39; Mihan Singh v. the Sub-
Divisional Canal Officer, Annual Digest, 1954, pp. 64-66; Supreme Court of
India in Virendra Singh v., State of Uttar Pardesh, Annual Digest, 1955, p. 131.

Given the many separate state successions involved in the formation of the United States
between Great Britain, France, Spain, the Republic of Texas, and Hawaii, this doctrine i
s also affirmed in
the following decisions of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Perchm
an, 7 Pet. 51, 86-87 (1830); United States v. Chavez, 159 U.
S. 453 (1895); Brownsville v. Cavazos, 100 U. S. 138, 25 L.
Ed 574 (1879); United States v. Perot, 98 U.
S. 428 (1879); Fremont v. United States 17 How. 542, 58 U.
S. 241 (1854); United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U. S. 256 (1946) Society for the
Propagation of the
Gospel v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464, at 493 (1823); Delassus v. United States
, 9 Pet. 117 at 133; United States v. the Heirs of Clarke and Atkinson, 16 Pet. 228, at
232; Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall. 308 at 312 (1871); Soulard v. United States, 4 Pert. 5
11 at 512 (1830); Terrett v. Taylor 9 Cranch 43 at 50 (1815);Ely v. the United Stated,
171 U. S. 220 at 223; Shapleig v. Mier, 299 U. S. 468 at 470 (1937);

The same doctrine of public international law re complete survival of 'vested' private la
w rights upon state succession has also been affirmed in the following decision of Amer
ican State courts in Miller v. Letzerich, 49 Sw2d 404, 85 A.L.R. 451 (Texas, 1932); Ha
rris et al. v. O'Conner, 185 Sw2d 993 (Texas, 2944); Manry v. Robison et al, 56 Sw2d
438 at 444; 122 Tex. 213 (1932); Pendery v. Panhandle Refining Co, 169 SW2d
766; Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No,
1 v. Southwest Cotton Co, 4 P2d 369 (1931); Vanderslice v. Hanks, 3 California 27 at
37-
38 (1852); State v. Valmont Plantations, 346 S.W.2d 853 (Texas, 1961); State v. Balli,
190 S.W.2d 71 at 99 (Texas, 1945); Luttes v. State, 289 S.W. 2d
357 (Texas 1956) and 324 S.W,. 2d 167 at 176.

The invocation of the Treaty of Peace with verbiage more understandable at: Chisholm v. State
of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793), clearly specifies that “We The People” are not
“Subjects”, but, rather Sovereigns without subjects.
The following is a compilation of various case cites with objective to make more explicit the
meaning of this DIPLOMATIC PROTEST: [bolding, underlining, etc. added] SOVEREIGNS
WITHOUT SUBJECTS – ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY OF PARIS 1884

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt
currency or securities[checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government
of "We the People" and reduces it toan entity rather than a government in the area of finance and
commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of a mere private
corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel
performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is
the holder-in-due course* of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one
upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents
and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes". For purposes
of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from
government."Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371. [*See footnote – Holder In
Due Course Notes]

“Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct
participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or
custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing
subordinates who cause violations.” Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689
F.Supp. 93

"History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain
common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government." Bell v. Hood,
71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.

Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend to overlook
the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are sovereign. …
Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in
office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.”
Afroyim v Rusk, 387 US 253; 87 S.Ct. 1660. “In our country the people are sovereign and the
Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our
Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to
those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the
specifically granted ones.”
The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown below may help you to see that
it is anestablished fact, as well as a respected and valid concept.
"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his
prerogative."Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of
the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the
citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the
sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793
pp471-472
"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the
territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and
to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent
residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection
of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for
that protection." Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)
Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a
Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land long
antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of
law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights.”

A vast assortment of supportive reference material is available, however, I feel I have displayed
a sufficient array for confirmation and clarity of my Claims.

The “Doctrine Of Contribution” applies explicitly to Affiant, for I: a man called John-
Quincy: of the family ofJones: holding the office of the people: adhere to the Ten
Commandments: with full liability: in and for the judicial-district: Douglas: the county; country
of Missouri: under the authority of the one living deity: King of kings, and Lord of lords:
Yahweh: John-Quincy: Jones - Exiled Sovereign.

*****************************************************

INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES
A/K/A INTERLOCKING EQUITY TIES
to establish parameters of fiduciaries

The U.S. Feral Government (not a typo) is out of control!!

Thomas Jefferson said in 1821: “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the
judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little
today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of
jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

President Theodore Roosevelt 1906: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an
invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business
and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”

President Woodrow Wilson: "Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce
and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is
a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so
pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation
of it."

Lenin: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it."

Harry S. Truman: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive
measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where
everyone lives in fear.”

Luke 11:46 “Woe unto you also, you lawyers; for you lade men with burdens grievous to be
borne, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

Luke 11:52 “Woe unto you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge: you
entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered.”

Oligarchy: Government by a few; those making up such a government – lawyers!

May I remind you that - failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42
U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, etc...) is a Criminal Offense?

To simplify issues and bring clarity concerning duties, responsibilities, and obligations of
the offending corporate STATE OF MISSOURI officials, we present the following
Interlocking Directorates:

1. The first "connection" from the highest, and most potent, position is:
a. 77 Stat. 630-631, P.L. 88-243 (1963) and P.L. 88-244 (1963) introduces and "makes law"
providing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as Private Law enacted for the municipal
District of Columbia and the United States (federal government). These laws/actions were/are
expressly in force and effect on citizens of the federal government. PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630
is "AN ACT To enact the Uniform Commercial Code for the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes." This is where the uniform commercial code enters as the implied "law of the
land." [SEE also, H.J. Res 778, December 10, 1963, 77 Stat 775]

"It is well settled that "United States" et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21,
1871, under the name "District of Columbia"". 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62

Heritage Dictionary: Co·lum·bi·a (k…-l¾m“b¶-…) n. The United States.

For sake of simplicity, a "Public Law", as referenced, P.L. 88-244, is Private Law only meant for
private corporate citizens, not We The People.

(i) "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations,
or corporations": 50 AmJur 12, p.28

(ii) A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its
enforcement are enacted: 20 AmJur 33, pgs. 58, 59.

(iii) Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 AmJur 35, p. 60.

(iv) In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive
their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve
Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979).

(v) The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published
statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly 133 U.S. 21 (1890).

b. It is all private law, not International law (but, may be referred to as Private International
Law), and it is owned by the same people that own public law 88-243 (1968). The UCC was
written and is owned by UNIDROIT. It is in the Vatican (actually, it is only about one hundred
yards from the "Holy See").
(i) To properly address "public law", one must understand that it is "Private Corporate Charter"
that owns the "P.L." and it is all "statutory". Public Law was converted to Public Policy in 1938
(policy = political = police). All private corporations, including governments, are under "public
policy" and are to deal only with other corporations, as exemplified herein.

(ii) The Private Rights of Private Man is not affected by public law, public policy, private law, or
anything else, as long as, Private Man does not harm another Private Man. He is not "statutory",
but Lawful.
A. "We the people have discharged any debt which may be said to exist or owed to the
state/government. The governments are, presumably, indebted continually to the people,
because the people [the sovereigns] presumably assented to the 1878 creation of the
government corporation and because we suffer its continued existence. The continued debt
owed to the people is discharged only as it continues not to violate our private rights, and
when government fails in its duty to provide protection-discharge its debt to the people, it is
an abandonment[delictual fault] of any and all power, authority or vestige of sovereignty
which it may have otherwise possessed, and the laws remain the same, the sovereignty
reverting to the people whence it came." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
B. "All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide
protection for private rights Wynhammer v. People, (13 NY 378), which duty is a debt owed
to its creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which debt
and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the de
facto government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety,
the unenfranchisedindividual owes nothing to the government." (Emphasis mine) Hale v.
Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

(iii) Public means: of, concerning, or affecting the common unity of the people, the Assemblage
of Private Man.

(iv) Private means: not available for public use, control, or participation, belonging to a
particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government (remember, as a
corporation, the gubm't becomes no more than any other corporate "person"), not holding an
official or public position. - If you're still confused, go back to 1. b. above and 2. & 4.e. below.

(v) "The entire taxing and monetary systems are, hereby, placed under the U.C.C." The Federal
Tax Lien Act of 1966, also see: Public Law 89-719, Legis. Hist., pg 3722, C.R.S. 5-1-106, U.S.
V. Conrad Pub. Co., 589 F.2d 949 (1978) - being commercial in nature of admiralty
Jurisdiction. [Ratification Doctrine]

(vi) NOTE: Concerning “private” v. “public” via “Civil” Law - The civil law tradition makes a
sharp distinction between private and public law. Private law includes the rules governing civil
and commercial relationships such as marriage, divorce, and contractual agreements. Public law
consists of matters that concern the government: constitutional law, criminal law, and
administrative law. In many countries with civil law systems, two sets of courts exist—those that
hear public law cases and those that address matters of private law. Remember, Civil Law is
opposed to Common Law.

(vii) On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150
years concerning "common law," in the Federal Government, "THERE IS NO FEDERAL
COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE
RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL
OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE
LAW OF TORTS" (See: Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188).
(viii) The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained
Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII,
were hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which
was once again brought inland.
"This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification
of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE
DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAWand SUITS IN EQUITY, this
change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY." (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17; also see, Federalist
Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14,
1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of
Independence; July 4, 1776,Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.) [SEE 1 (a) above.]

c. The U.S. pays $260,000 per year to UNIDROIT for the use of the copyrighted UCC. The
International Registry is the private law of UNIDROIT.

d. The Vatican Bank had owned Continental Bank, Chicago, whose sole stockholder was
Walter Commings, Jr, the Chief Judge of 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

e. Chicago Board of Trade is owned by a Judge.

f. All courts in the United States (corporate zone) are "for profit" corporations and listed in
Dunn and Bradstreet under the heading, "Also Trades As:"

(i) There is no debate that the free States of the Union once existed upon North American soil.
There is no debate that the People obtained the Rights of the King as Sovereigns and Joint
Tenants in the Sovereignty. There is no debate that said States of the Union, if extant, are well
hidden and non-accessible and the Sovereign People are now draped with a blackened cloak of
deceit, trickery, and true identity theft by those known as "persons" of corporate nature, legal
fictions, creatures of pretense in mind only.

(ii) How do "they" turn a bona-fide Republic State of the Union back into a "territory" of the
United States?

(A) On the political “side“, this is how, "…on the authority of the United States Supreme Court,
it is thecomplete subjugation [to bring under control; conquer; to make subservient; enslave]
of any political unitto the federal government of the United States that makes a subdivision
a territory". Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486; also The Coquitlam v. United States, 163 U.S.
346. [Boys and girls, can we all say U.S.D.C.?]

Under the "Buck Act," 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal
area" within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the
federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal
territorial law upon the people in this "Federal area," and in Sec. 110(d): The
term "State" includes any territory or possession of the United States. The Buck act affects
the actions of all federal departments within the 50 states. There in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105,
the federal "State" is defined “(also known as), "The State of xxxxxxx."

The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal "State (of) [name of
state] within a state." We have numerous references to this.
Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617
(1953);Schwarts v. O'Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440

Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28 U.S.C. § 30020(15)]. The States are sub-
corporations of the Fed, this aforementioned Corporation. [See 1934, State Compact Act;
Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 101].

[Primary laws extended to Territories] by the United States was the Customs Act of July 27,
1868 [15 Stat.L. 240; Rev. Stat. of 1873-1874, 2nd ed. Secs. 1954-1976, page 342], extending
over the Territory the laws of the United States with reference to customs, commerce and
navigation, and constituting it a customs collection district. Under this act important powers of
regulation were conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury.

(B) On the religious “side”, this is how, “EXECUTIVE ORDER 13397 - Church as a
Governmental Agency”
Gone with the stroke of a pen, as of Mach 07, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security will
now utilize our nations non-profit churches as one of the federal government's primary spying
agencies. Is any further comment necessary?

(C) But, how can “they” have access to our everyday functions to obtain control over the
innocent maneuvers we must negotiate daily?

“But, in fact and in law, such statutes are intended to be applied to those who are here as
"residents" in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution
and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.” United States v United Mine Workers of America,
(1947) 67 S.Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258.

22 USC Sec. 1621 -EXPCITE- TITLE 22 CHAPTER 21 SUBCHAPTER I -HEAD- Sec. 1621.
Definitions
-STATUTE- For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term 'person' shall include an
individual, partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United States.
Clarity must be brought to the subject of “State.” A vast difference exists between a fiction,
fable, legal entity, corporation of “some body politic” and the non-fiction, real and true, body of
Christians also known as a “state.” The following is placed directly below to bring clarity to
such:
The State is a person, and possesses as its property one territory. As this one civil person
consists of all the citizens, so its property consists of all the individual property of the citizens.
It is una persona, unicum patrimonium. This unity of the person and property of the state is
expressed by the Common Law maxim, that all lands were originally granted out by the
sovereign [Yahweh, God, our Father, through His Son, Yahshua, the Christ], and are therefore
holden, either mediately or immediately, in fee. In apprehension of [Christian and Biblical]
law, the [Christian] state holds the soil of the whole territory as one estate [in Christ].

(D) And, aren’t “they”, the feral government, in reality “NON EXISTANT”?

Absolutely, so, let's look at United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33. -
"It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the
Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President
Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 -
Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the
Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States
Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States
Federal Government exists today in name only."...
(E) How is the “United States” usurping their “alleged” authority?
In "the Court's" “Statement of Venue” (scilicet, ss) you may find written or indicated that your
“Plaintiff” is the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. Though this may appear that this may be
an attempt to identify The United States of America, it is fatally flawed and is, in nature, fact,
and law, an attempted enlargement, by means of fictions, of your non-existent granted powers
and authorities. In a landmark, time honored, never disputed, and still distinguished case we
learn:

“The proper jurisdiction of the courts of Common Law is of things done within the bodies
of counties, and its further enlargements, by means of fictions, can be considered only as
ingenious subterfuges and devices, to amplify their powers.”

Justice Story; 1815 De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; 7 Fed. Cas. 418; Case No. 1,776
(Reaffirmed 78 U.S. 1 to 396 U.S. 215).

We are bringing to your attention, at this time, the second part of this indisputable political
doctrine. In order to clarify this statement, we have taken the liberty of noticing synonyms to
those words that may not be easily understood:

(Common-Language Clarification) “and its further enlargements (expansions), by means of

fictions (imaginary/legal assumptions), can be considered only as ingenious (clever)
subterfuges (concealments) and devices (schemes), to amplify (exaggerate) their powers.”

(iii) Whoever said the “police” are there to protect and to serve? I said that; they’re here to
protect the political establishment from knowledgeable people and to “serve” the public in the
same way that a farmer gets his cow “serviced” to produce another calf. Are “they” managing
the herd? You bet they are.
23 CFR PART 1250 - 40% TO
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION PARTICIPATION IN STATE
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
40% Benefit to Local-Reg
Part 1250 gives 40 percent benefit to local police action through political subdivision
participation in State highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402 (b)(1)(C). 1250.4(b) When
Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended by a political subdivision, such
expenditures are clearly part of the local share. [Note: previous to this it was stated that the
Federal funds dispersed are at least 40%.] Well, so much for “un-biased” police.

(iv) The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it
does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a
service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v Devito, 686 F2d 616.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you
can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):

"Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach
of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of
an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution."

g. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-
54)

h. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal
Bulls of 1455 and 1493).

i. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (Papal Bulls of
1455 and 1493).

j. The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4.
Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44).

k. America is a British Colony. (the UNITED STATES is a CORPORATION, not a land mass,
and it existed before the revolutionary war and the British troops did not leave until
1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43,Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for
Propagating the Gospel, &c. v. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS
Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.).

28 USC 3002(15)(A): "United States" means a Federal corporation.

l. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213). The “United States” or District of Columbia
is owned by the Vatican Bank, lock stock and barrel, according to Tupper Saussey’s archival
research.

m. 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209); see also Public Law 88-243
and 88-244 (December 1963).
n. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at
Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80). Actually, it was the Rothschild banks - the
Rothschild banks of England financed the North, - the Rothschild banks of France financed the
South. At that time, the King of England was also the King of France.

o. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani
stated on C-Span that "New York City was the capital of the World" and he was correct. (20
CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)).

p. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816).

SEE: Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding
The Headquarters Of the United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg.
241). It is to be further observed that the "Agreement" regarding the Headquarters District of the
United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record - Senate, December 13, 1967,
Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.

q. The IRS is an Agency of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) not the U.S. Government.
(Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564,
Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.). See also:
Bretton Woods Agreement, as amended.

r. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United
States government, even though the "US Government" held shares of stock in the various
Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang, 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d 1239) ["They
are also corportions.]

s. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social
Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the
Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the
earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the
SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111,
subpart B 422.103 (b) (2)).

t. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN. (Look
at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)

u. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v.
Davis 301 US 619,Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.).
v. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)

w. The U.S. has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654).

x. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22
U.S.C. 285-288)

y. There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789. Judges do not
enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v.
GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178).

(i) And, do the “courts” enforce laws, or codes? Answer: Code is supreme. “Where both the
code and general principles are available, the former should always be considered and applied if
applicable. By legislative declaration the code is the law, and if general principles appear
inconsistent, they must be considered displaced under AS 45.05.006. Moreover, even where
inconsistency does not exist, the code must be regarded as supreme; general principles even
when consistent with the code are merely supplementary“.Prince v. LeVan, 486 P.2d 959, 9 UCC
Rep.Serv. 367 (1971). Kelly v. Miller, 575 P.2d 1221, 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 632 (1978)

(ii) But, are “judicial” courts necessary? Answer: The particular need for making the
judiciary independentwas elaborately pointed out by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No.
78, from which we excerpt the following:

"The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The
Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights
of every citizen are to be regulated. The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either
the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can
take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely
judgment." WE HAVE NOT HAD THIS BALANCE OF POWER FOR A VERY LONG
TIME!!

(iii) The “ideal” of checks and balances within government structure have long been a thing of
the past.

The Reconstruction Acts took away the Lawful Standing, the Lawful Capacity, from the Citizens
and changed their Lawful Standing to “Legal Status”, from ELECTORS in a THREE BRANCH
GOVERNMENT as they were in Original Jurisdiction, to REGISTERED VOTERS in a TWO
BRANCH GOVERNMENT.
Want proof? Go to your local City Clerk and ask for a CERTIFIED COPY of your City Charter
in any State, or your local County Clerk for a CERTIFIED COPY of your County Charter in any
State. You will discover thatALL cities and counties in your State have only two branches, the
Executive and Legislative. There is no Judicial Branch!! The Judicial Districts were all
abolished in 1856 by the Act of the 34th Congress.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1860, reviewing the Act of the 34th Congress, ordered ALL the
States in existence at that time to close down all the Court’s of law and all courts complied in
1860. None of the Court’s of any State are created by the Constitution of their State.

Every Court, from top to bottom, the justice of the peace courts, the police courts, the municipal
courts, the district courts and the circuit courts are ALL Statutory Courts created by Statutes
which were enacted by the Legislature and in fact, and law, merely Administrative Agencies and
only have the authority conferred by Statute.

z. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178).

(i) Modes of enforcement are erratic and arbitrary, a ground for prosecution is anybody's guess,
and the operation in the law is shrouded in mystery. In most any issue at hand we might suggest
the following:

"This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a person of ordinary
intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United
States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests
and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242."

“When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and that the
improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say the least, not happy. More
than once have judges of a court been indirectly reminded that they too are taxpayers.

No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this commonwealth the Internal Revenue
Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or
shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a
judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue
Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his returns.” Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167 (1965).

(ii) Dear Friends: this all leads to domestic terrorism! Please follow:
18 USC 2331. - Definitions. As used in this chapter -
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

aa. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502).

bb. We (as corporate entities) own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our
children.(Tillman v. Roberts108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146, Senate
Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session,Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481).

cc. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037).

dd. You (as corporate entities) can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are
not a party to it.Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 14
Georgia 438, 520) That's why I rely onYOUR sworn Oath to keep my Rights as "secured by
the Constitution".

ee. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest
code breakers.Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477.
1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

However, please be mindful that, it is not until you get to Article 10 (PL 88-243, 77 Stat 630) -
Construction with other laws that you begin to see that the laws of the Republic were left in
place in Section 28:10-104; Laws not repealed. And, remember, in UCC 1-103.6 it clearly states
that all is to be done in accordance with the Common Law, so, remedy is available, although
hidden. This is how "they" brought in all of the Uniform Laws through D. C. and because all of
the states are subdivisions with interlocking directorates, all are simply municipal corporations of
D.C., and the D.C. code applies - if you are a corporation.

Ahhh, but, how does the “court system” see this? Many illustrations could be included, but, this
document does not have room. I will take only the space for one small example:
In 1976 our court system (what was left of it) was flushed away. Senate Bill 94-204 deals with
the court system and Senate Bill 94-381 deals with Public Law. These solidified changes in all
operations of law by utilizing the words "construe and construct". Slight deviations transfer
meaning of words to fit their dolus agenda, such as, "in" changed to "at", "at law" v. "in law".

Lawyers, judges, and the "court system" are now allowed to change any word they wish to mean
any thing they want. The "law" now means whatever they choose it to mean. It is no longer a
court of "law", but a court of "construe and construct".

Lawyers are the guilty culprits that make these devious changes. Often their answers will reflect
such changes. They intentionally misquote past cases, or other issues, as facts by making such
changes. Illegal? Not according to the above Senate Bills.

So, be aware, "they" can construe "their" copyrighted laws any way they wish to fit the situation
for their own betterment; and, you have no say about it. Can you use the same copyrighted codes,
laws, statutes, and regulations against them? Not unless you have a license from the BAR. You
will be in violation of copyright infringement and punishment is mandatory.

Learn this - there is NO LAW in this nation, or the world, for that matter. There is ONLY
contract law. And, the only Bill of Rights the "courts" are required to take cognizance of is the
13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th. Fair nuff?

Consider the following fact of “law”, which shall be reiterated further in this document: "Judicial
Notice" was commanded in the case of Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, where
the Supreme Court ruled that particular case was the last time it would address "official
definitions" of the term "United States", affirming that there are two (2) distinctly different
United States with two (2) opposite forms of governments, both having the same
congress. [“Opposite” means opposing!!]

2. All governments, and every agency thereof, are corporations, obtaining any jurisdictions from
their Charters, as per:
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People
– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the
mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial
persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and
attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government,as well
as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s
Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States 1795 -----
; and,

b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities
(remember, although all government agents and employees are 14th Amendment citizens, this
Sovereign is not);

(i) The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 - "A 'citizen of the United
States' is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the
private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds
the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4." and,

c. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773, "Therefore, the
U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises
of the federal government as an "individual entity"", and,

d. "This State" and "this county" and all "municipalities" are controlled by 42 USC

IT IS ALL IN TITLE 42, SECTION 3711 THROUGH 3796,

This shows that every agency involved in criminal cases receives Feral funds.
Find the State code and you should find a State Agency that compares to the Coordinating
Council. These are not the only agencies that grant federal funds into the States. This is only the
beginning:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 4 PARTS:

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

ALL OF THESE 4 DEPT. ARE HEADED BY AN ASSISTANT U.S. AG. WHO IS

APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. HOW IS THAT FOR A MILITARY SET UP?

Criminal justice system has ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS OF:

(a) State highway patrol, county sheriff, municipal and township police, and all other
enforcement agencies.
(b) the court of appeals, courts of common pleas, municipal courts, county courts, and mayor’s
courts when dealing with criminal cases.
(C) prosecuting attorneys, city directors of law, jails and on and on.

Title 42 USC sec. 3791(a) States means any State of the US, DC, commonwealth Puerto Rico,
Units of Local Government means any city, county, township, parish, village or other general
purpose subdivision of a State.

Title 42 sec. 3732 reads

The State Coordinating Council has a Director appointed by the Governor. His duties are full
federal control over the States. Start to understand who you are really up against. Find the flow
of money.

Title 42 sec. 3732 reads:

(a) There is established within the Dept. of Justice, under the general authority of the AG, a
Bureau of Justice Statistics (Bureau)
(b) The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, and with the advice and
consent of the Senate - - - The Director shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall report to the AG, through
the Asst. AG
WOULD THIS NOT LEAD YOU TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS?
(1) The name, and address of the Director per Title 42 @ 3732
(2) Certified copy of Oath
(3) Certified copy of bond or insurance that covers his actions
(4) Copy of contracts awarded that award money to the State
(5) The reports the AG made that reflect that money
Once you establish that the courts, prosecutors, public defenders, auto registration, are all
claiming federal money for their operations then they commit fraud in the procedures they use, it
is actionable under FALSE CLAIMS ACT.

For some interesting reading get a copy of Title 4 USC and take careful notice of the section
"States".
Also, Term “state” as used in rules providing when a state may appeal in a criminal case is all
inclusive and intended to include not only the state but its political subdivisions, counties and
cities. Spokane County v. Gifford, 9 Wash.App. 541, 513 P.2d 301, 302. Federal Government is
a “state” bound by all of provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Enright v. U. S.,
D.C.N.Y., 437 F.Supp, 580 581.
Foreign State. A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered “foreign” to
each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. ...

3. An issue declared, but not rebutted, stands as Truth in Law (thus, this proper rebuttal):

a. All "U.S. citizens" were classified as "Enemies of the State" as made more explicit in our
"EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", in which we
demonstrated that, pursuant to Public Law 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976), the state of national
emergency has been officially terminated by the United States Congress, and accordingly, any
and all authorities which might have permitted Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction ("Star
Chambers") to exist in American federal courts were also effectively terminated by said Public
Law [See 42 U.S.C. 1986], and explicitly brought forward in EXHIBIT 063 - NOTICE THAT
AFFIANT IS NOT A "nom de guerre", with an additional eight (8) Points. For brevity, only one
point will be displayed:

Point 063 A. Affiant has no record or evidence to indicate that Affiant is a combatant enemy of
the State, or that Affiant is a belligerent of the government, as per; article by Chuck Morse, “Is
the ‘National Emergency of FDR’ Still In Place?” that: “This was a classic example of
sleight of hand. In fact, Congress exempted all laws, based on the emergency of 1933 that
were already in place. Rather than being based on the authority of the President under a
‘national emergency’ these federal laws have now been codified as a permanent part of the
U.S. Federal Code. Included among the codified laws would be Section 5(b) of the Trading
with the Enemy Act, whichclassifies the American citizen as an enemy of the
government.” Therefore, although the “national emergency” technically ended on September
14, 1976, when the 93rd Congress passed H.R. 3884, the National Emergencies Termination
Act (50 USC 1601, Public Law 94-412), because the last paragraph said that it didn’t apply
to any “authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended,” the classification of a
United States citizen still stands as enemy of the government, Affiant has no record or
evidence that Affiant should maintain any association with the label, definition, or designation of
a US citizen, or any similar appellation.

b. Under Act of Congress, May 31, 1878, c. 146, 20 Stat. 87, 31 U.S.C.A. § 404, which enacts
that notes of the United States, issued during the war of the Rebellion, under acts of congress
declared them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, and since the close of the war
redeemed and paid in gold coin at the treasury, shall be reissued and kept in circulation, is
constitutional, and notes so reissued are a legal tender.

This idea supports that, under emergency - the War of Rebellion (Civil War), the printing of
Notes is Constitutional. Of course in the actual theater of war, the Constitution is suspended, and
some of the Executive Orders of the War Between the States are still in full force and effect.
So, bear in mind that:
(1) the "Emergency War Powers Act" is in full force and effect; and,
(2) though "notes" are not Lawful Money, they are declared "legal tender"; and,
(3) all U.S. citizens are declared as "enemies of the government"; and,
(4) all "legal tender" (notes of the Federal Reserve) is defined as US currency.

4. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., page 1420, "A mixed war is one which is made on one side
by public authority, and the other by mere private persons."

a. We have determined that a "mixed war" is a "Commercial War"; and, a "public authority"
exercises "Private Law"; to the benefit of corporate strategy, which is not unlawful if not
exercised against a "Private Person", or "Private Man".

b. When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the
Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation
as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it
exists solely by virtue of the charter - compact - constitution that created it. The Constitution
does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to
its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445
(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F. Supp. 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia,
820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966),
among others).

In Noah Webster's dictionaries, pre 1969, in the abbreviation section you will find U.S.C.
defined as United States of Colombia. And, then in the American Heritage Dictionary, the
definition of Columbia you will find:Columbia, the United States. This notation is to "de-fuse"
any assumption/presumption that this Affiant is "subject to", or a "citizen of" any such
extension/trespass against the mind, will, and conscience of Affiant, within, or without, the
United States, onshore, or offshore.

c. Why were the post offices in Washington, D.C. placed under the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury???

72d Congress Sess. II CHS. 160-162

MARCH 1, 1933
[CHAPTER 162]
March 1, 1933 [H.R. 14401.]
[Public, No. 405.]
Washington City post office.
Jurisdiction, etc. of, placed under the Secretary of the Treasury.
Vol. 30 P. 614.
U.S.C., p. 1306
AN ACT
To provide for placing the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Washington City post office
in the Secretary of the Treasury. [and, every post office with "zip" codes]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40, sec. 285), is hereby amended
to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the
Washington City post office and the additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and
Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his
custody and control.
Approved, March 1, 1933.

d. The U.S. Attorney General is the "permanent member" to the Secretariat of the Interpol
Operation, and theSecretary of Treasury the "alternate permanent member." Under Article 30
of the "Constitution and General Regulation of Interpol, "22 USC 263(a), the agents are required
to renounce their allegiance to their respective countries and expatriate. Consequently, ALL
"public servants," officials, Congressmen politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement
personnel, the States and their various agencies, are express agents of the Foreign
Principals who have bankrupted and stolen the United States (of America) through the paper
money banking swindle and other frauds and treacheries. And, why is the Secretary of the
Treasury also known as the US Governor for the International Monetary Fund?

e. And, how are all the "States" linked to the Feral Gubm't?

(i) All states in the Union were reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the
corporation known as the UNITED STATES, hence creating a new (and, different/alternate)
union of American STATES. UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, 3002(15)(A), basically
reiterates that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. What was not said in 1871, but was
implicit, was what is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(B) & (C): That all departments of the
UNITED STATES CORPORATION are part of the corporation. The "Corporation" and its'
subsidiaries have suffered at least three bankruptcies.

Much later (Conference of Governors, 1945) the legal fictions called "State of YOUR STATE"
confirmed and "pledged" what was not theirs to pledge, the sweat, labor, engineering,
technology, and future children of We The People, to support the indebted legal fiction,
"UNITED STATES". The full "Changing of the Guard" (state name change status) was
accomplished in, I think, 1968.

(ii) The other united States is the Continental united States. This is the country founded by the
Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States
(actually, Canada was part of the original charter). The original, organic Constitution had no title,
the Preamble was the "title". When the "constitution" was used as the corporate charter for the
Act of February 21, 1781, it was given a "title", - Constitution of the United States of America,
and that IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, as in the NAME of a vessel. Please note the distinct
difference and meaning in the two words "of" and "for". Of means somethingbelongs to
something, or someone, else - "Constitution of (belonging to, possession) the United States of
America", v. "Constitution for (the seating of a Tribunal, seating of judgment) the United
States of America".

So, what difference does it make if they changed one tiny little word? You'd better learn. If you
don't want to learn, go back to sleep - I apologize whenever I disturb any of the "pajama people".

f. And, how did the International Bankers become the "receivers in bankruptcy", but
first, remember, the only ones put at risk are the ones that turned in their gold to the
"Securities Intermediaries! (So, how can "they" rightly claim the position of "receivers of the
bankruptcy"??)

(i) Please observe the "sleight of hand" as the International Bankers slip in to "assume"
the position of "Creditor", without contributing any money, whatsoever; pay special
attention to the fact that there is a "statutory" pledge and they assumed position as
receiver:

Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of
obligations and interest on the public debt.

It says, “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and
further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me],
as “the net public debt”.

Title 18 Sect. 8 defines ''obligation of the United States'' to include……“ all certificates of
indebtedness …..drawn upon authorized officers of the United States issued under any Act
of Congress,” which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, And of course
includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its issuance as “Public Policy” in
remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its
Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of the UNITED STATES.

(ii) We must get more specific to unravel the threads of this web of deceit. In the 14th
Amendment (which all"public" gubm't employees are party to) it plainly states:

The validity of the public debt... ...shall not be questioned, and further states, “the Secretary
of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates
a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [non-14th Amendment citizens],
as “the NET public debt.”

So, "public debt" is the charges against me by the several and many corporations that
"service" me (government and non-government, but all corporate), and the "net public
debt" is the interest due or accrued, which is to be returned to the source, (me) as Equity
for my losses incurred by supporting the Beast (turning in the Lawful Money -
Gold). Referenced to 14th Amendment, Section 4.

I must reiterate that it is the 14th Amendment citizen and the Treasury Department that is not
to question "The validity of the public debt..." (...shall not be questioned).

(iii) The question of "Communal Debt" arises and must be answered to clarify the issues. The
Communal Debt was, and is, the debt of the Corporation(s), in particular, governments and the
expense of running the same. Since the de jure governments are in position, but no offices are
filled, there can be no expenses for the same. The de facto institutions of government have no
"negative" expenses, as they hire only qualified pirates and thieves.

(iv) The next question that must be addressed is that of "Communal Credit". Understand
this, there was, and is, no Communal Credit. It was the Private Man under duress, coercion,
threat of imprisonment, loss of life, etc., that delivered his gold to the thieves, it was not the
corporate entities that turned in the gold.

(v) I am convinced that there is a one million dollar ($1,000,000) limitation on each occurrence
that I may make "request for discharge" against the net public debt:

Title 26 USC section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate amount treated as
acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a
married individual filing a separate return)."
(vi) I must address the issue of what, or how much, in the "form of money" was created to bring
about this majestic public debt. First, let me state that "money" is the ONLY creation of
mankind. Next, please be informed that only the debt money is created, never the interest.

And, you can not pay a debt instrument with a debt instrument (a "bill" with a Federal Reserve
Note), you can only discharge the debt - set it off into the future, so the debt accrues and climbs
to a higher level with each use.

Now, in reference to (ii) above stating that “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest
due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which
is held by the public, [non-14th Amendment citizens], as “the NET public debt,” when you and
I direct the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge, or setoff, our (non 14th Amendment citizen)
debts, it is the accrued interest returning to its' source, and reducing the public debt in the
process.

5. We have studied, in depth, the Trading With The Enemies Act, TWEA T 50 APPENDIX
App., and found the most recent edit of Title 50a of the US Code was released by the Law
Revision Counsel - LRC - (http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on
2007-02-13 ...and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Fri Feb 16
04:33:56 2007. Therefore, our information seems to be most current.

a. We have determined that Sections 7, 9, and 16 of TWEA in Title 50 APPENDIX

App. provides us with remedy and recourse; and, under said document, we confirm:

(i) We have administered our Claims under Oath; and,

(ii) All Claims are ONLY against Corporations; and,

(iii) All said Corporations are subject to the Secretary of State, Missouri State, The United States
of America.

b. In the Nature of Declaration, we solemnly state:

(i) We are NOT Austrian or Hungarian nationals. We are NOT of Germany, Austria, Hungary,
or Austria-Hungary ancestry.

(ii) We ARE Missouri Nationals, Missourians, of Scottish, Irish, British, and an indeterminate
percentage of American Cherokee and other American Indians lineage. All of our parents were
of similar percentage of European and Indian stock. We exercise Right of Claim
as Remaindermen and heir to all assets belonging to our natural parents.

(iii) Our declaration of citizenship (pursuant to Trading With Enemy Act, TWEA) is upon the
land as Missourians (not within any corporate entity).

(iv) Our proper political standing is established in International law, the law of nations and the
treaty of nations, which guarantees every man the right to make political self determination,
which may vary from time to time. We are properly seated in Office of We The People.

c. TWEA states that; after one has proper standing, and has established a relationship with the
Comptroller, they have a duty to protect me. They are bonded to do so and they have taken an
oath to do so. You have been properly Noticed of:

(i) My declaration of citizenship was made known for this last time in Section 5, b, (iii) above.

(ii) Notice has been served on the original registrars, being, they are the original fiduciary, that
they, as per; UCC 1 and UCC 3 filings mentioned previously to effectively function to alleviate
the distresses and eliminate the Breach of the Peace, which is the Highest Crime under
International Law.

6. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

a. CONUSANCE, CLAIM OF, English law. This is defined:

(i) to be an intervention by a third person, demanding judicature in the cause against the plaintiff,
who has chosen to commence his action out of claimant's court. 2 Wilson's R. 409.

(ii) It is a question of jurisdiction between the two courts Fortesc. R. 157; 5 Vin. Abr. 588; and
not between the plaintiff and defendant, as in the case of plea to the jurisdiction, and therefore it
must be demanded by the party entitled to conusance, or by his representative, and not by the
defendant or his attorney. Id. ibid. A plea to the jurisdiction must be pleaded in person, but a
claim of conusance may be made by attorney. 1 Chit. Pl. 403.

(iii) There are three sorts of conusance. 1. Tentere placita, which does not oust another court of
its jurisdiction, but only creates a concurrent one. 2. Cognitio placitorum, when the plea is
commenced in one court, of which conusance belongs to another. 3. A conusance of exclusive
jurisdiction; as that no other court shall hold pica, &c. Hard. 509 Bac. Ab. Courts.
b. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1531 says, "In essence, all court decisions are
based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it."

c. In Erie Rail Road –v- Thompkins (1938), the U.S Supreme Court Ruled: “The United States is
a Bankrupt Nation in Receivership to this Nation’s Creditors;” And, “All Law is
Commerce!” Please see EXHIBIT - Commercial Crimes.

19 C.J.S. Sections 883, 884 of Chapter XVIII, Foreign Corporations follows in its entirety:

19 C.J.S. Section 883, page 541, XVIII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

Definition and General Considerations

A foreign corporation is one that derives it existence solely from the laws of another state,
government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in statutes, to
designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another state or a corporation
created by or under the laws of a foreign country.

At common law, a corporation may be deemed a person, and statutes providing that corporations
shall be deemed persons include foreign corporations.

Generally, the status of a foreign corporation as either foreign or domestic is determined solely
by the place of its origin, without reference to the residence of its stockholders, or incorporators,
or the place where the business is transacted.

However, by express enactment, a corporation, a majority of whose stock is held by aliens, is, for
some purposes, deemed to be a foreign corporation. A domestic corporation does not become a
foreign corporation merely by accepting from another state a grant of the right to own property
and to transact business in such other state.

Federal Corporations
A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a
foreign corporation. The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a
state.

Section 884. Status

A corporation exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of law, and where that law
ceases to operate, the corporation can have no existence. A state cannot impose one of its
artificial creatures on another sovereignty nor confer on its corporators powers which they
can lawfully exercise beyond its jurisdiction. Rather, it must dwell in the place of its
creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.

d. And, of course the "Fed" makes grants to the States - It all Starts Here:
(i) TITLE 49 Sec. 31102. - Grants to States (and, the borrower is slave to the lender)

(ii) Commercial Vehicle Programs - All law is "commerce", with commercial penalties.

(iii) "Your" driver license is a commercial permit. (And, it is only good for "commercial
vehicles")

7. BE INFORMED, because of Interlocking Directorates of many agencies, offices, and

governmental employees working in concert and collusion, the resultant effect, due to the
usurpation of authority, excess of jurisdiction, or lack of all jurisdiction, not granted by the
Lawful Man, is the experiencing of major pains and penalties and other crippling injuries,
as per:

a. While, on its face, "executive measures" with the red and blue lights may seem to be a way to
deter crime, implementing statutes actually gives incentives to judges, police officers and district
attorneys to rope as many people into the court process as possible. Like any other commission
structure, it is a numbers game. The higher the number of defendants created, the higher the
payout for the police officer, the judge, and the District Attorney. [SEE 1997 Court Funding Act]

b. Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by Government

officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs.
U.S. 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared:

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to
the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws,
existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.

For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the
Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to
become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the law,
the end justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine,
this Court should resolutely set its face."
c. McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001) "government officials in
general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives,
particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone who takes an
oath of office knows - or should know - that much."

d. "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of
the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

e. 18 USC 31, (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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and
property, or property or cargo.

f. 18 USC 31, (10) Used for commercial purposes.--- 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.

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting
administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject
matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its
employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v
Pearson, 181 Cal.† 640.

“As the majority states, failure to verify the signature of the arresting officer on the Uniform
Violations Complaint precluded the district court from being vested with subject matter
jurisdiction and from being empowered to act. Therefore, all proceedings in the trial court are
rendered void.” Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 (Okl. Cr. 1990).

g. "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against
being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also
privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or
criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal
proceedings.” Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73).

h. The Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle even for limited purposes of questioning its
occupants unless the police officer has a founded suspicion of criminal conduct. U.S. V. Ramirez
& Sandoval, 872 F2d. 1392.
i. Harassment by threat of fraudulent proceedings prohibited: Source: Statute at Large 1997,
ch 45, § 10; Statute at Large 2005, ch 120, § 228.
(Text of section effective July 1, 2006) Harassment by threat of fraudulent legal proceedings or
liens prohibited--Misdemeanor--Subsequent violation felony. Any person who harasses any other
person by sending or delivering, or causing to be sent or delivered, any letter, paper, document,
notice of intent to bring suit, or other notice or demand that simulates any form of court or legal
process and that threatens the other person, directly or indirectly, with incarceration, monetary
fines, or penalties, or with the imposition of a counterfeit lien on the real or personal property of
the other person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction for a
violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. Lack of belief in the jurisdiction or authority of the
state or of the United States is no defense to a prosecution under this section.

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all
jurisdictionover the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the
exercise of such authority,when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is
permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.

j. After all the above issues are brought into the light of Truth, there is but ONE
JUDGMENT CALL for those at ground, grass roots, level and that is to STOP THE
PIRATES AT "CRUISER" LEVEL. Educate them as best you can. Yes, you can starve the
corporate beast. Convert them one by one. (Just bear in mind that a snake is a snake. When in
doubt, ask yourself how many of your family that you love have been destroyed by an "extra
close shave - the sheering of the Sheeple." How many of your paychecks have gone to the Beast
and how many of your homes have gone to the international bankers thru fraud and deceit?)

If you do not comprehend that every “patrol vehicle” is a Pirate Cruiser, then, go back and read
the above until you do. I’m not saying that all pirates are bad. Most pirates are nothing more than
“privateers” contracted to the “Crown”. Most are just not informed. Many actually believe they
are doing a service for the community. Just remember, if you have a cow and you want a calf,
you call a farmer with a bull to “service” your cow. Point clear?

8. NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL - NOTICE TO THE

PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT.

Because of Interlocking Directorates and networking computerized files, you are charged
with the responsibilities, duties, and directives to:
a. Assure that all related agents/agencies receive verification of this documentation,
including, but not limited to:

(i) Comptroller of the Bankruptcy, because of the affect on the banking system
(ii) Secretary of State, United States
(iii) Commissioner of IRS, because of the effect on his records
(iv) U.S. Attorney General
(v) Associate U.S. Attorney General
(vi) Chief Counsel of the Office of Foreign Asset Control pursuant to 40 Stat 411

b. Accomplish the task of:

(i) Removal of our Christian Appellations, listed above, from Enemy of the State database
(ii) Placing our Diplomatic Standing in National Crime Information System – presented
explicitly in the National Crime Information Center.

BOTTOM LINE:

A Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, U.S. v. Cheek.
"Biblical Law at "Common Law" supersedes all laws, and "Christianity is custom, custom
is Law." Robin v. Hardaway 1790.

Habakuk, chapter 2 NASV: Then the Lord answered me and said, "Record the vision, and
inscribe it on tablets, that the one who reads it may run. For it is yet for the appointed time; it
hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly
come, it will not delay…

Behold the proud one, his soul is not right within him…

Will not all of these take up a taunt-song against him, even mockery and insinuations against
him, and say, 'Woe to him who increases what is not his -- for how long -- and makes himself
rich with loans? Will not your creditors rise upsuddenly, and those who collect from you
awaken? Indeed, you will become plunder for them. Because you have looted many nations, all
the remainder [remnant] of the peoples will loot you -- because of human bloodshed and
violence done to the land, to the town and all its inhabitants."
**********************************************************

14. TO: Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer of the United States, hereinafter “Treasurer”
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20220

LETTER ROGATORY, ENTITLEMENT ORDER, AND PAYMENT ORDER

This Letter Rogatory, Entitlement Order, and Payment Order is presented by John-Quincy:
Jones, seated in Office of We The People, looking to the highest known Person in venue of the
Treasury Department of the United States government, Rosa Gumataotao Rios, requesting
that Rosa Gumataotao Rios, examine the contents of the attached package, make any minor
adjustments to the verbiage that may be necessary keeping the "spirit" of the intent unchanged,
and notify me if any major changes are necessary.

I am in hopes that this package will suffice to accomplish the desired goals of bringing equity to
this Private Man and assisting the operations of United States government by providing deposits
and other support to the administration of said government to diminish the national debt.

I, John-Quincy: Jones, Entitlement Holder, do hereby, by way of this communication

appoint Rosa Gumataotao Rios in Treasurer’s commercial capacity as Securities
Intermediary to process the annexed Entitlement Order under this reduced-to-writing
instruction as an effective Payment Order.

Points and Authorities: UCC 8-102(7), UCC 4-105, 12 CFR 229.2, 12 CFR 210.2, 12 USC
1813(1)(A), Black’s 5thpage 133, UCC 8-501 through 511, UCC 3-105(a), UCC 8-102(8), UCC
8-102(a)(15)(iii).

Your assistance is requested to further expedite the desired intent of this package and is deeply
appreciated.
EXHIBIT H

MEMORANDUM OF RECORD

TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT
This Testamentary Affidavit is prepared in accordance for use under the authority of and in
accordance with the "Convention de la hay, 5 Octobre, 1961," and for evidentiary purposes,
Federal and State under the authority of and in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, Rule 902,
to establish "Self-authenticating evidence under Seal."

VERIFIED OATH PURGATORY (A.K.A. Testamentary Affidavit)

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: Oath Purgatory, “A purgatory oath is one by which one destroys the
presumptions which were against him, for his is then said to purge himself, when he removes the
suspicions which were against him; as, when a man is in contempt for not attending court as a
witness, he may purge himself of the contempt, by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse.”

To whom these presents shall come, BE INFORMED!

The undersigned, Affiant, sui juris, heretofore having properly identified Himself to be a native
born Natural American Free Inhabitants, propagated from Lawful Wedlock, a Legitimate Born
Child (not a “natural born child” having a/any government for a father), jus soli, bearing true
faith and allegiance thereto; a sovereign elector inhabiting The Missouri Republic, enjoying the,
"right of soil," "right of property," "right of preemption," “right of exemption," and all other
Rights Unalienable (Rights Not In A Lien-Able Position), as publicly published and thus
declared nunc pro tunc, and by virtue of the appertaining thereto, to wit:

I specifically deny that I have granted, donated or given any legal title to any purported, implied,
resulting, charitable or other trust administered by the UNITED STATES, the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, or the STATE OFMISSOURI. I further specifically deny that I ever had or have
any intent to create a cestui que trust, whereby John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, is settlor, donor, or
grantor of any res to which a trust wherein JOHN Q. JONES, the “Vessel,” is a
beneficiary having a territorial relationship with UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, or STATE OF MISSOURI.
I specifically deny that I ever had, or now have, intent to pledge, gift, assign, act as settler, donor
or grantor of anyres, which would attach to my children, my biological property gifted to me by
the Creator, as subject to condition precedent, thereby John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, is free born
upon the soil of the Nation of Missouri.

I specifically deny that there is any law that can compel me to accept or assign liabilities
imposed by the compelled use of a legal personality; and, I specifically claim ownership and
right to use of my own properties, my own commercial vehicles and devices and my own natural
amenities from whatever resource derived.

EXPLICIT – Corporate and “citizen” denial

Due to the convoluted, distorted, mis-informed, deceptive, and war-like attributes of Legislated
Aggression against Claimant/Grantor and other People upon the Soil of North America, Grantor
explicitly denies being a corporation or a citizen of any corporate agency or activity and Grantor
vehemently rebuts any presumption/assumption that is part and/or parcel to any confusion of
“citizenry.”
There are three different and distinct forms of the “United States” as revealed by this case law:
“The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely
different things, depending on the context.” Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652
(1945) & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) & United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 3
Wheat. 336 336 (1818)
The issues of this instant matter IS that Claimant/Grantor is NOT a “citizen” of any corporate
structure; the issues areNOT as to whether there are three different "United States" operating
within the same geographical area, and one"United States" operating outside the
Constitution over its own territory (in which it has citizens belonging to said "United States"),
were settled in 1901 by the Supreme Court in the cases of De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1
andDownes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes supra, Justice Harlan dissented as follows:
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we
have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained
under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside
and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are
accustomed to exercise." [Downes supra, page 380, emphasis added]

This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, with
citizens of the "United States" belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of
the Constitution, was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico,
258 U.S. 298, wherein that Court affirmed, at page 305, that the Constitution does not
apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union, quoting Downes supra and De Limasupra;
that, under 4:3:2, the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and
the citizens of the "United States" residing therein.
"In its governmental or public character, it represents the state, while in the other it is a mere
private corporation. As a political institution, the municipality occupies a different position, and
is subject to different liabilities from those which are imposed upon the private corporation. But
because these two characters are united in the same legal entity,it does not follow that the
shield which covers the political equally protects the private corporation." STRAND v.
STATE., 16 Wn.(2d) 107, 116 (January 6, 1943).

All Federal Agents/Agencies, Bureaus, Departments, and all Courts and their officers have failed
to state which United States they represent, since they can represent only one, and it’s under
Federal Debt Collection Procedure, as a corporation, the United States, Inc., and its satellite
corporations sometimes referred to as “STATE OF XXXXXX,” have no jurisdiction over
Claimant/Grantor, an American national and a belligerent claimant. Claimant/Grantor hereby
asserts the right of immunity inherent in the 11th amendment: “The judicial power shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens of any Foreign State.”

Of a subordinate nature adding confusion to conflict there are two (2) separate and distinct
national governments and a federal government;

A national government is the government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a
community by what is termed the social compact, and possessing complete and perfect
supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil
government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being
the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. 6
Ohio St. 342, 1856 WL 59 (Ohio)

There is a circus of conflicting deceitful codes that act as the operating procedures of the
FEDERAL CORPORATION: the United States. Yes, the United States is a Corporation [See 28
U.S.C. § 30020(15)]. The States are sub-corporations of the Federal United States, the
aforementioned Corporation. [See 1934, State Compact Act; Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 101].

Claim of Status – Free Inhabitant

Grantor claims the status of free inhabitant (rather than a superficial “citizen”) of the United
States under Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 Article IV.
The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation as the first constitution* of the
United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by
all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of
sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state
governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually
led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the
Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. *Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The
People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University
Press, 2008) at p. 131 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3 (noting that "Madison, along with other
Americans clearly understood" the Articles of Confederation "to be the first federal
Constitution.")

Government information (Library of Congress) may be only superficially true. The Library of
Congress version of what happened to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is the
official explanation of why the un-informed populace has no other choice than to be a “citizen”
of the United States. As the national library for the United States, the Library of Congress cannot
claim the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 have been repealed, as there is simply
be no documentary evidence of that or the "repealed" word would have been used.

Many say that Federal and State governments would like to see the Articles of Confederation of
November 15, 1777 permanently removed from the Organic Laws of the United States of
America, but it cannot happen, as the Articles of Confederation is the only real source of
government power, which is exercised by the enactment of written law. Unwritten law applies to
everyone, but written law only applies to government and its citizens.

The Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 limited government in America.

I reiterate, Grantor claims the status of free inhabitant.

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION OF NOVEMBER 15, 1777 WERE ONLY

REPLACED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE THE LAND
IS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CONCLUSION

Grantor chooses the Law Common as handed down through the generations and documented in
the Holy Writ, as evidenced elsewhere within these annexed documents and claims exemption
from arrest for, both, Himself and his various properties (including, but not limited to Grantor’s
Exchangeable Energy in the form of Currency), as per:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on
his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the
state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so
far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives
nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed
by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken
from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights
are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from
arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he
does not trespass upon their rights." HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

**********************

EXHIBIT “F”

DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER TO TREASURER OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA

The Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section
1), is a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee.

The President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract that the President
(executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office. That
is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in
his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. Hehas a constitutional oath.

This supporting document is in reference to a “Pre-existing Contract” known as a “Certificate of

Live Birth,” to wit:
1. A person (corporate United States) gives value (certificated security = birth
certificate) for rights (to create money on the signature of the man = borrow
from the people) as security (promise not to deny or disparage rights of the people)
for satisfaction (acknowledgement of obligation to people) of a preexisting claim
(beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).
2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value (signature on application for birth
certificate) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction
(distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the
Constitution).
3. A person (a state, i.e., Missouri, etc.) gives value (Constitution) for rights (to be recognized
internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction
(acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay
international creditors).
4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value (Article VI oath) for rights (to hold
an office) as security (promise to support “this” constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a
preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).
5. A person (a state, i.e., Missouri, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for
rights (to be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to
abide by terms of Constitution) forsatisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a
preexisting claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy).
6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as
security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance)
of a preexisting claim (people’s beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution).

Make a note of this – The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath, is
the ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am
the HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate –Certificated Security). It is the holder who
acquires a security interest in the instrument, whereupon, I ACCEPT the instrument. It is not the
issuer who has the security interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability.

16 CJS Constitutional Law §229, Rights of, and Accounting by, Trustees and Guardians;

“Rights acquired by trustees under a private, active trust are vested, but the rights of trustees who
are merely public officials exercising public functions or who are naked trustees of a passive
trust are not vested. A guardian has no vested right to be governed by the law in force at the time
of his appointment and qualification.” [emphasis added]

And, Further:

As per: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 US. 363-371 "As the use of private corporate
commercial paper,debt currency or securities is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of
the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the
area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of a
mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity
cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other
corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement
between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to
produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called
statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely
separate from government."

And, as per: Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93 “Federal
employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation,
failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which
unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause
violations.”

And, as per: Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C.- So. Dist. CA. "History is clear
that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law
rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government."

And, as per: Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend
to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are
sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that
they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.”

And, as per: Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)"The People of a State are entitled to all
rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."

And, as per: CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793
pp471-472 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the
sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but
themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the
sovereignty."

And, as per: Hale v Henkel, 201 US 243. “The individual may stand upon his constitutional
rights as a Citizen. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom,
beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the
Land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due
process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as
he does not trespass upon their rights.”

**************************
EXHIBIT G - Parson

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)

Sir William Blackstone
A PARSON, persona ecclesiae, is one that has full possession of all the rights of a parochial
church. He is called parson, persona, because by his person the church, which is an invisible
body, is represented; and he is in himself a body corporate, in order to protect and defend the
rights of the church (which he personates) by a perpetual succession.
A man can possess the rights of a church through the fiction known as "artificial corporate
personality" that is, designating the man a corporation sole. In the beginning as explained by
Blackstone, in exchange for the spiritual care of the inhabitants, the parson was compensated
with the assets of the church which is in essence the vesting in him of the church's property
rights. Now in order for these property rights to be available for the next parson for
compensation, the rights could not be vested in the man in his "natural person" capacity for upon
his death these rights might descend to his heirs and therefore the rights of the church was vested
in him in the capacity of a [corporation sole]. By incorporating the parson and his successors a
corporation sole, "all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved entire to the successor:
for the present incumbent, and his predecessor who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and
the same person; and what was given to the one was given to the other also."
"At the original endowment of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the
parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish, were vested in the then parson by the
bounty of the donor, as a temporal recompense to him for his spiritual care of the inhabitants,
and with intent that the same emoluments should ever afterwards continue as a recompense for
the same care. But how was this to be effected? The freehold was vested in the parson; and, if
we supposed it vested in his natural capacity, on his death it might descend to his heir, and would
be liable to his debts and incumbrances: or, at best, the heir might be compellable, at some
trouble and expense, to convey these rights to the succeeding incumbent. The law therefore has
wisely ordained, that the parson quatenus parson, shall never die, any more than the king; by
making him and his successors a corporation. By which means all the original rights of the
parsonage are preserved entire to the successor: for the present incumbent, and his predecessor
who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and the same person; and what was given to the
one was given to the other also."
"Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who
are incorporated by law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly
that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the king is
a sole corporation: so is a bishop: so are some deans, and prebendaries, distinct from their several
chapters: and so is every parson and vicar."
Today the use of a corporation sole is slightly different; it is not simply for the holding of
property. As we seen earlier, a church is a corporation/legal person and as such it is capable of
holding property and entering into contracts. However, since a corporation can't act on its own it
needs a legal personality (agent) to do these things. That personality (agent) is the corporation
sole. In short, by designating the parson as a corporation sole, the parson is able to carry out the
business of the church in "person" (agent).
END OF:
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone

By attaching a body corporate (corporation sole which represents the OFFICE of PARSON and
its UNDERTAKINGS) to the body natural of a man, in his dual capacity of artificial person and
natural person, he is able to protect the rights of the church through perpetual succession.

Black’s 1st Law Dictionary

CORPORATION SOLE. A corporation consisting of one person only, and his successors in
some particular station, who is incorporated by law in order to give his successors in office some
legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons
they could not have had. In this sense the sovereign in England is a sole corporation, so is a
bishop, so are some deans distinct from their several chapters, and so is everyparson and vicar.
A corporation sole consists of a single person, who is made a body corporate and politic, in order
to give him some legal capacities and advantages and especially that of perpetuity; as a bishop,
dean, etc.

The Overseers of the Poor of the City of Boston v. David Sears 39 Mass (2Pick) 122 at 128
(1839)
". . .In all these aspects, the distinction between an aggregate and sole corporation, growing out
of the different modes of constitution and forms of action, is striking and obvious. A bishop or
parson acting in a corporate capacity and holding property to him and his successor in right of
office, has no need of a corporate name, he requires no particular, he performs all legal acts
under his own seal, In his own name and name of office; his own will alone regulates his acts
and he has no occasion for a secretary, for he need not keep a record of his acts, need no
treasurer, for he has no personal property except the rents and proceeds of the corporate estate,
and these he takes to his own use when received. By-laws are unnecessary, for he regulates his
own action, by his own will and judgment, like any other individual acting in his own right.
But it is not necessary to pursue the comparison into all its details; the points suggested are
sufficient to show the legal distinctions between the two classes of corporations."
Professor L.C.B. Gower, The Principles of Modern Company Law (1954) Stevens & Sons,
London, p. 62:
... the idea behind the corporation sole is the same as that underlying the corporation aggregate,
the personification of the undertaking as opposed to the natural persons operating it from time to
time. In the case of the corporation aggregate it is the undertaking which is personified to
distinguish it from its members; in the case of the corporation sole it is the office (of bishop,
vicar or the like) which is personified to distinguish it from the individual holder from time to
time. It should be stressed, however, that the distinction between the two kinds of corporation
has no necessary connection with the number of members; a company is a corporation aggregate,
not sole, even though it may be a one-man company.
[It is to note however that when a man ACTS in the character of the OFFICE, the law treats the
body natural and the body corporate as being one and the same.

John Doe v. Bennett, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436, 2004 SCC 17 (CanLII)

The purpose for which ecclesiastical corporations sole like St. George's are created is to serve as
a point of legal interface between the Roman Catholic Church and the community at the diocesan
level. The Church is at one and the same time a spiritual presence in the community and a
secular actor in the community. The task of the corporation sole is to provide a bridge between
the two spheres for the diocese. On a secular level, the Church interacts with members of the
diocesan community in a host of ways. It carries on a variety of religious, educational and social
activities. It makes contracts with employees. It transports parishioners. It sponsors charitable
events. It purchases and sells goods and property. To do these things, it requires a legal
personality. That personality is the corporation sole. To restrict the purpose of the corporation
sole to the acquisition, holding and administration of property is to capture only a portion of the
purpose it is intended to serve and to artificially truncate its functions.
The role of the corporation sole as a legal interface between the Church and the community is set
forth in the legislation creating it, An Act to Incorporate the Roman Catholic Bishop of St.
George's, S.N. 1913, c. 12. The Act, quite simply, incorporates the office of bishop, in all its
aspects. It does not confine itself to the holding of property belonging to the diocese.

*************************************

Trust Receipts – from 89 C.J.S. Trust

In trade practice and by the support of the judicial authority, a trust receipt might equally be used
in connection with a domestic transaction as it is used in an importation of merchandise.—In re
James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y. 30 F.2d 555, 557.
Trust receipt. A well-known instrument of commerce, a useful and convenient method of
financing commercial transactions. It is an independent security devise employed in commercial
credit transactions, frequently employed in the importing trade, and also in the marketing of
automobiles, and the same principles govern whether the transaction is domestic or the financing
of imports.
As used in commerce by credit and financial agencies it is regarded as a security
instrumentality which resemblesa pledge, a chattel mortgage, or a conditional sales contract,
but is exactly none of these mediums of trade and credit. Some of the chief differences are the
absence of actual or immediate delivery, or change of possession, the removal of notice,
recordation or verification requirements, and the retention of title in the vendor. By means of
the trust receipt, title to goods passes directly from the manufacturer or seller to the banker or
lender who, as owner, delivers the goods to the dealer in whose behalf he is acting secondarily,
and to whom title goes ultimately when the primary right of the banker has been satisfied.

A trust receipt purports to vest and retain title in the holder of the receipt, and it is generally held
that rights incident to such title and ownership will be recognized not only as against the one
giving the receipt, but his receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, and creditors generally, unless the
contract is itself violative of local statutes.
Trust receipts have generally been held not subject to recording or filing acts, the reason
being that such statutes are to prevent secret liens on property of persons who have had prior
possession and ownership of the property, and it is for the same reason that holders of trust
receipts have been allowed to prevail against the ultimate purchaser or his trustee in bankruptcy
only where the title of the holder was derived from some one other than the debtor.

Whether the trust receipt transactions is tripartite type (where the finance company (in New
York City) advances the funds for the purchase of the chattel, purchases it and receives title to it
from the manufacturer, and delivers possession to the dealer, who gives his trust receipt (street
name) to the finance company) or it is the bipartite type (where the dealer has purchased and
received title directly from the manufacturer and gives his receipt to the finance company)
matters not at all. The Uniform Trust Receipts Act governs receipt transactions.

Notes: (Also from 89 C.J.S. Trust)

Thoroughly established.
Trust receipts, because of their beneficial features in quick credit transactions and their
frequent judicial concern, have become thoroughly established and identified in business and
law.—In re Boswell, D.C. Cal, 20 F.Supp. 748, 751
The origin and development of the trust receipt as a convenient means of financing
importations, and its later application to domestic transactions, is exhaustively discussed by the
Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in the case of In re Fountain Inc., N.Y., 282 F.2d 912,
913.
Method of securing mercantile loans.
 The essential character of the trust receipts has long been understood by the mercantile
and banking community. Such ‘trust receipts’ include the long-established method of securing
mercantile loans by a transaction in which the lender, having no prior title to the goods upon
which the loan is to be given, and without having possession, which remains in the borrower,
lends his money to the borrower upon the security of the goods, which the borrower is privileged
to sell clear of the lien, he agreeing to pay all or part of the proceeds of the sale to the
lender. The documents in which the transactions are expressed are known in the business and
banking world as ‘trust receipts.’—In re Boswell, C.C.A. Cal., 96 F.2d 239, 241.
Used in domestic transactions
In trade practice and by the support of the judicial authority, a trust receipt might equally
be used in connection with a domestic transaction as it is used in an importation of
merchandise.—In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y. 30 F.2d 555, 557.
Original use
Trust receipts were originally employed as a convenient method of financing
importations, and are still so used. –In re Bell Motor Co., C.C.A.Mo., 45 F.2d 19, 22.
Of vital importance in importing trade
By the arrangement known as the “trust receipt” plan a banker advances money to an
intending importer, and thereby lends the aid of capital, of credit, and of business facilities and
agencies abroad, to the enterprise of foreign commerce. This practice is of great importance to
importers and without it much of our foreign trade would be impossible because the individual
importer lacks the necessary capital and foreign credit.—In re. Duniap Carpet Co., D.C.Pa., 206
F. 726, 730, 731.
As used in the importing trade
(1) The term “trust receipt” is applied to an instrument in writing whereby a banker,
having advanced money for the purchase of imported merchandise and having taken title in his
own name and retaining such title, delivers possession of the merchandise to the importer on an
agreement in writing to hold the merchandise in trust for the banker until he is paid. The only
kind of instrument which we have recognized and called a trust receipt is one
wherethe banker at the request of the importer buys goods directly from the foreign seller
and takes title in his own namefrom the foreign seller and then turns the goods which he has
thus bought directly in his own name over to the importer on a trust receipt in order that the latter
may carry on his own commercial adventure.—Simons v. Northeaster Finance Corp. 171 N.E.
643, 644, 271 Mass. 255.
(2) A merchant who wishes to import goods for which he has not funds to pay obtains
credit from a bank to a fixed amount, against which he draws for the price of the goods to the
order of the vendor or the vendor draws for the price of the goods to his own
order. The draft with the bill of lading indorsed in blank or to the order of the bank
isforwarded by the vendor to the banker for acceptance. The banker accepts the draft payable in
one, two, three, or four months, as the case may be, forwards the bill of lading indorsed in
blank to his agent in New York, who delivers the same to the importer against a receipt called a
trust receipt, whereby he agrees to sell the goods for account of the banker, to pay him the
proceeds and so put him in funds to take up the acceptance at maturity.—In re Cattus, N.Y., 183
F. 733, 734, 106 C.C.A. 171. [In New York, huh?]
 (3) It is an instrument whereby the banker advancing the money on an importation takes
title directly to himself, and as owner delivers the goods to the dealer in whose behalf he is
acting secondarily and to whom the title ultimately is to go when the primary right of the banker
has been satisfied, the title remaining in the banker until the price is paid to him.—People’s Nat.
Bank v. Mulholland, 117 N.E. 46, 47, 228 Mass. 152.
Use extended because of marketing of automobiles
The use of trust receipts has become greatly extended in the United States since the
automobile has assumed its nationwide and popular proportions in financing and credit
requirements for this major industry.—In re Boswell, D.C.Cal., 20 F.Supp. 748, 751.
Similarly expressed
(1) There are various forms of chattel security, as a pledge, conditional sale, or
mortgage. But the trust receipt does not, on its face or by its name, purport to conform to any of
these types. It is not a pledge, for a pledge depends upon possession of the parties secured, and,
when possession is lost, so is the security. While the title in the case of a pledge is in the
pledgor, or in another than the pledge, such is not true in a trust receipt, where the title is
intended to remain in the party secured while the possession is intrusted to one who has a certain
interest as yet indefinite in the property. The practice of a conditional sale bears some
resemblance to a trust receipt. Possession cannot be retaken until there is a default; whereas in a
trust receipt, it can be retaken at any time. The holder of the trust receipt is not interested in
the sale of the property or its commercial or market value. If he retakes the goods, and sells
them for an amount in excess of the sum, this excess belong to the buyer or importer; whereas, in
a conditional sale, the buyer is interested only in such amount as he has paid on account of his
contract. In any event, the holder of the trust receipt does not sell the goods to the importer or
domestic trader, and whether or not the bank, finance company, or individual has an intention of
selling goods to him, it lends him credit and advances the money for the buyer’s account. In the
case of a mortgage, whether of chattels or realty, the security is dependent upon the title, as
distinguished from a pledge, which rests upon possession. Title is given to the person, while
possession may be given to the mortgagor, or the debtor, or his representative. The title thus
conveyed to the mortgagee is as security for the performance of his obligation, and, in the case of
a trust receipt, title has never been in the importer or domestic buyer, and he consequently cannot
convey such title back to the holder of the trust receipt. If the mortgagor conveys his title to the
mortgagee as security for the performance of an obligation to a third person, the equity of
redemption belongs to him, and not to the third person, and the property reverts to him upon
performance of the obligation by the third person. In a trust receipt, under no circumstances does
title revert to the manufacturer or seller.: --In re James, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 557, 558.
(2) While the security interest afforded by a trust receipt prior to the enactment of the
uniform law was somewhat similar to many other forms of chattel security, it may be
distinguished from such transactions as s mortgage, pledge or conditional sale. In the case of a
mortgage, a lien is given by the mortgagor to the mortgagee in order to secure the latter for the
performance of an obligation by the mortgagor who retains possession of the property. The trust
receipt does not conform to a pledge, since in the case of a pledge the security depends upon
possession of the goods by the person secured; whereas in the case of a trust receipt, the entruster
does not have possession of the goods. In the case of a conditional sale, possession may not
ordinarily be retaken until there is a default in the contract; whereas under a trust receipt
transaction, possession may be retaken at any time. Other distinguishing features of these
various types of security interest under the former law are clearly indicated in the case of In re
James, Inc., 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 555.”—C.I.T. Corporation v. Commercial Bank of Patterson, 149
P.2d 439, 442, 64 Cal.App.2d 722—Chichester v. Commercial Credit Co., 99 P.2d 1083, 1085,
37 Cal.App.2d 439.
(3) In a trust receipt transaction it was held that no element of a conditional sale or chattel
mortgage was present, and consequently none of the requisites to the validity of such instruments
was required.—In re E. Reboulin Fils & Co., D.C.N.J., 165 F. 245, 248.
May be a chattel mortgage
When the substance of the transaction is considered rather than the form, a trust receipt
may be nothing but a chattel mortgage on a stock of merchandise daily exposed for sale in
parcels at retail. –General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Boddecker, Tex.Civ.App., 274
S.W. 1016, 1018.
Not chattel mortgage
(1) “Upon examination of the instrument in suit it seems plain enough that there was no
obligation imposed on the sales company either to pay or to secure a purchase price, nor did any
title pass to the sales company to support a chattel mortgage back.”—Globe Securities Co. V.
Gardner Motor Co., 85 S.W.2d 561, 567, 337 Mo. 177.
(2) “The decisions are not entirely in harmony as to the nature of trust receipts of the
character involved in this proceeding, or their proper interpretation, whether they constitute
conditional sales contracts, or, are; in their nature; chattel mortgagees, or contracts of agency
creating bailments. The holding in this state is that they are contracts creating bailments for
sale and not in their nature chattel mortgages.”—Commercial Credit Co. v. Interstate Securities
Co., Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 1000, 1004.
Close resemblance to conditional sale
The trust receipt transaction in its historic aspects and fundamental theory more nearly
falls under the category of a conditional sale than a chattel mortgage.—Walter v. Commercial
Credit Co., 200 N.W. 300, 302, 68 S.D. 151.
Superior protection to unrecorded chattel mortgage
It has been recognized that trust receipts should have superior protection as compared
with an unrecorded chattel mortgage, when they are given to a lender of money by some one
other than the debtor, and where either the delivery or possession against trust receipts is made to
the debtor.—In re James. Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555, 558.
Similarly expressed
Under the ordinary form of trust receipt, it is well settled that the title to the property is in
the holder of the receipt, and not in the receiptor, and the rights incident to such title and
ownership will be enforced as against the one giving the receipt, his receiver, trustee in
bankruptcy, and creditors generally. The courts in so holding are, in most instances, merely
giving effect to the express provisions of the trust receipt, one of which commonly is that
thegoods are held as the property of the party to whom the receipt is given.—In re Otto-Johnson
Mercantile Co. D.C.N.M., 52 F.2d 678, 680.
 Recording not required
The holder of a trust receipt, if he derives his security title from a person other than the
one responsible for the satisfaction of the obligation which the property secures, is not obliged to
file his security as is required in the case of a chattel mortgage. In such cases only can he deliver
the property to the obligor to act as his fiduciary.—In re James Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 30 F.2d 555,
557.
Purpose of act.
“The Uniform Trust Receipts Act is a perplexing maze of technical phrases wholly
incomprehensible without an extensive study of the background and development of the security
device known as the trust receipt. To avoid trespassing upon the traditional and well defined
fields of such common security devices as the pledge, conditional sale and chattel mortgage,
most of the act is devoted to definition, limitation and restriction of the arena in which the new
device is to play its part in the world of commerce. The object of the Act is to standardize and
protect the trust receipt method of financing the acquisition and resale of goods in their journey
form producer to retailer.”—In re Chappell, C.C.Or., 77 F.Supp. 573, 575

*******************************************

COVER LETTER SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

Claimant/Grantor continues to declare Truth in form of affidavit, as best as Claimant knows it

and believes it to be; this Affiant, Secured Party, Private Attorney General, and Servant of the
Most High Creator, in, and for, His Higher Kingdom, John-Quincy: surnamed Jones, said
Servant being duly and properly Baptized unto His Righteousness and claiming Birthright of the
Lineage of Jacob, of the Tribe of Judah of the Lower Branch, which included the Spartans,
Trojans, Milesians, Frankish, Scandinavian, and Irish/Scots, was grafted into the Higher Branch
of Judah with the marriage of King Eochaidh to Princess Tamar Talphi; Claimant also claims an
unmeasured bloodline of the Tribe of Dan and of the Tribe of Gad, and, of unmeasured
aboriginal American National bloodline of the Tribal Nation Cherokee and Chief Moytoy; and,
Now, therefore, by the Authority of the Original Organic Constitution of The United States of
America and the Oath of Office of all duly sworn officers and employees of the UNITED
STATES and the STATE OF MISSOURI and every subdivision of said corporate government, I
do beckon, request, and demand restitution of Claimant’s Property (which may have been stolen,
confiscated, pirated, or taken for unauthorized use by another) and Rights and compensation of
damages for the injuries brought upon me, and enumerated in this, and annexed/associated
documents.
This/these Claim(s) is/are authorized to be timely and expeditiously processed under the 72-hour
rule as referenced in “The Expeditious Transaction Act,” 12 CFR Part 226.1 and Truth In
Lending Act 31 CFR Sec. 226.1

If Accord and Satisfaction are not attained, Claimant reserves the right to initiate a Libel of
Information to issue anarrest warrant for the bonds of the Governor of the International Monetary
Fund or any of his agents (referenced at 28 USC, PART VI, CHAPTER 163) in order to protect
the interest of a Free Inhabitant of The United States of America. Administrative action against
Claimant/Grantor is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 USC 7421, by Claimant/Grantor
protecting the combination of property rights and contract rights that has been placed in custody
by the agents of the Treasury, the Department of Transportation, the Bureau of the Census,
various and sundry Agencies, and the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue laws
of the corporate United States.

FRCP – Rule 81 makes reference to rights and safe guards, paid for in the highest premium - the
blood of Claimant’s ancestors that died in the War of Independence (and the risk of
Claimant/Grantor’s blood, 1966 - 1968 (see DD 214)), for the People of The United States of
America and their posterity, therewith, establishing a “Constitutional” precedence and
supremacy, whereby failure to prevent a deprivation of a constitutionally secured right (42
U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 U.S.C. 241, 242) is a Criminal Offense.

The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of Chicago published a circular titled “PUBLIC DEBT:
PRIVATE ASSET” in January 1999. On page four of said circular it plainly states, “…to a
consumer a savings account at a bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt.” Several
paragraphs later it says, “Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against
the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of the
government’s debt is someone's asset.” [Emphasis added]

The Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 - "A 'citizen of the United States' is
a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private
constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of
the USA and US Inc. in Section 4." NOTE: The Living Man choosesNOT to participate in the
any act/action of a DEAD (corporate) entity.

This act/action of the de facto government of the UNITED STATES as mentioned in the last
paragraph exemplifies and makes plain the fact that said UNITED STATES corporation, a
stranger, has usurped “ABATEMENT OF FREEHOLD” under unlawful intervention by seizing
and taking possession of property belonging to a Living Man
This counter against Abatement of Freehold is deemed a “BILL RENDERED,” a bill rendered
by a creditor to his debtor, and a “BILL OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT” to assure that any
defects are cured, so as to entitle Claimant to relief on the whole merit of Claim.

************************************

Affidavit and Declaration

I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, under the Jurisdiction of Natural Law, the Living Flesh
and Blood Man, the Son of Man, and hereditary sibling of The Anointed One, made explicit
in Gutenberg Bible for Birth Trust Claims as registered in Repository: Library of Congress
“Bible Collection,” Illus. in Incun. 1454.B5, do on this date: June 10th,2010 CE, at this
location 37.11363-92.58489 (Grid Co-ordinates) from the beginning, non-movable, instituted
and established upon attainment of majority of age, competent to take control of my own
financial affairs as Executor of Estate and able to honor all claims, do declare under penalty of
perjury to be a Statesman of the Missouri Republicand a Statesman of the Aniyvwiya Nation,
Category Four (4) [non-treaty] Aboriginal North American Natives.

By Grantor,
Executor for the Estate

Under duress per minas, ephemeral and desultory codes, statutes, and regulations with protest
affirmed, without United States.

JURAT
Missouri state )
)
Wright county ____________)

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by

the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person who appeared before me.
______________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ___________ (seal)

*****************************************

YOUR PICTURE HERE

In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones
Who may be NOTICED at:
C/O 123 West Columbus Street
Somewhere, Missouri Republic
Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

Power of Attorney

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
And, grant of Exclusive power of attorney to conduct all business, and legal affairs of principal
person.

POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT

1) In the Matter of the DEBTOR/GRANTOR known as JOHN JONES©, JONES-

JOHN©, J.Q.. JONES©, JOHN QUINCY JONES©, John Q. Jones©, or any derivative(s)
thereof, {who may be Noticed at above location for NOTICE, does hereby appoint John-
Quincy: Jones, as my attorney in fact, to take exclusive charge of, manage, and conduct all of
my taxing, business and legal affairs, all Copyrights, and for such purpose to act for me in my
name and place, without limitation on the powers necessary to execute this exclusive attorney in
fact as authorized:
(A) To take possession of, hold, and manage my Real Property or Estate and all other
Property;

(B) DEBTOR/GRANTOR John Q. Jones, being a beneficiary of various trusts by similar

sounding names, or derivatives thereof, agrees to function primarily as a 'transmitting utility',
conducting commercial activity including all receivables being money, currency, notes, and/or
Property paid or delivered to me from any source for the Secured Party/Creditor and agrees to
enter in the 'Chamber Commercial Registry' as said 'transmitting utility' and has assigned the
Creditor John-Quincy: Jones, with said Christian Appellation, complete Power of Attorney in
fact, for the Secured Party, Creditor, and Agent of Authority;

(C) To deposit funds in, make withdrawals from, or sign checks or drafts against any account
standing in my name individually or jointly in any bank or other depository, to cash coupons,
bonds, or certificates of deposits to endorse checks, notes or other documents in my name; to
have access to, and place items in or remove them from, any safety deposit box standing in my
name individually, and otherwise to conduct bank transactions or business for me in my name;

(D) To pay my just obligations and expenses, including reasonable expenses incurred by my
attorney in factJohn-Quincy: Jones, that may be considered prudent in exercising this exclusive
power of attorney in fact;

(E) To retain any/all equity involving investments, invest, and to invest in stock, bonds or
other securities, or in Real Property or Estate or other Property;

(F) To give general and special proxies or exercise rights of conversion or rights with respect
to shares or securities, to assign shares or securities with, or transfer them to protective
committees or similar bodies, to join in any reorganization and transfer assessments and/or
subscriptions called for in connection with shares or securities;

(G) To grant, sell, transfer, exchange, lease, give options, and make contracts concerning
Real Property or Estate or other Property for such considerations and on such terms as my
Attorney in Fact John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent;

(H) To improve or develop Real Property or Estate, to construct, alter, or repair building
structures and appurtenances or Real Property or Estate; to settle boundary lines, easements,
mineral and other rights with respect to Real Property or Estate; to plant, cultivate, harvest, and
sell or otherwise dispose of crops and timber, and do all things necessary or appropriate to good
husbandry;
(I) To provide for the use, maintenance, repair, security, or storage for any/all my tangible
Property or Estate;

(J) To purchase and maintain such policies of insurance against liability, fire, casualty, or
other risks as my attorney in fact John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent;

(K) To amend, add, delete, or change in order that the truth be ascertained and justly
determined in any form of contract that John-Quincy: Jones, may consider prudent.

The Creditor, John-Quincy: Jones, named on the Filing UCC1

# 123456789000 and Commercial Security Agreement filed with the Secretary of State
of Missouri is authorized by law to act for and in control of the DEBTOR/GRANTOR
being JOHN Q. JONES, JOHN QUINCY JONES, J.Q. JONES or any derivative(s)
thereof. In addition, through the exclusive power of attorney in fact to contract for all business
and legal affairs of the principal person, DEBTOR/GRANTOR known as JOHN Q. JONES,
JOHN QUINCY JONES, J.Q. JONES or any derivative(s) thereof.

The term "exclusive" shall be construed to mean that while these powers of attorney in
fact are in force, only my attorney in-fact may obligate me in these matters, and I forfeit the
capacity to obligate myself with regard to same. This grant of Exclusive Power is Irrevocable
during the lifetime of the Creditor John-Quincy: Jones.

Executed and sealed by the voluntary act of my own hand, this _____ day of _______________,
2010.
John-Quincy: Jones, one living servant of Yahshua the Christ, prepared this instrument.

I, the above named exclusive attorney-in-fact, do hereby accept the fiduciary interest and duty of
the herein named Debtor/Grantor and will execute the herein granted powers-of-attorney with
due diligence.

Acceptance: This __ day of ___________,

2010 L.S.

/S/ JOHN Q. JONES, GRANTOR

DEBTOR Signature /UCC 3-419 by
_________________________________________
John-Quincy: Jones, Creditor / Attorney in
fact.
****************************
In the Account of John-Quincy: Jones
Who may be NOTICED at:
C/O 123 West Columbus Street
Somewhere, Missouri Republic 14084 North State Highway 125
Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32

NOTICE - REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

And, Previous Codicil pursuant to 26§673 and 26§1341
I, John-Quincy: Jones©, born a Missouri state Citizen, living in Missouri and not residing "in
the state" nor "in this state" within the meaning of any other "federal area" described under Title
4 U.S.C. §110 (d) and (e), making My Abode outside the STATE OF MISSOURI and the U.S
described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) in and not "of" Missourientitled to Judicial Power
Citizenship status due a de jure Missouri state Citizen thereof invoking the Ninth and Tenth
Articles in Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America reserved
exclusively to the People, hereby revoke, rescind and make void, ab initio, all 13th amendment
presumed powers of attorney, in fact, or, otherwise, implied in law, or otherwise, signed either
by me or by anyone else in and/or on my behalf, as it pertains to an alleged Social Security
Number assigned and/or attached to Missouri Driver’s License Number #A1234567, birth
certificates marriage license and all other licenses and/or certificates issued by any/all state
and/or Federal governmental/ quasi governmental entities, due to use of the various elements of
fraud by said agencies to depriveJohn-Quincy: Jones© of My primary Missouri state
Citizenship and Privileges and Immunities secured by Article 1V, Section 4 of the Constitution
for the united States of America.
I, John-Quincy: Jones© hereby waive, cancel, repudiate and refuse to knowingly accept any
benefit and/or gratuity attached to the above-mentioned items and/or transactions that are not
secured by Article 1, §10 (U.S. Const.).
YOU HAVE BEEN NOTICED.
Done this __ day of __________, 2010
by __________________________authorized representative
John-Quincy: Jones©, Secured Party

*******************************
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS

TO: RISK MANAGEMENT AT EVERY LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATION

Greetings:

BE INFORMED; to protect my Interests, Properties, and Rights, I, John-Quincy: of

the Jones Family, as Trustee and in the nature of Private Attorney General, do, herein, make
known my intention to investigate, pursue, and expose “Dishonest Acts” that may have been
exercised against me and concealed from me to the detriment of my interests, rights, and
properties.

Attached and annexed to this document are various Affidavits in support to fully establish
my Claims.

This is Actual and Constructive Notice that, in accordance with Treasury Directive 25-06 and
16-14 that all Confidential Commercial Information in this set of Claims are presented to several
affiliated parties and the Treasury Data Integrity Board for their inspection as prescribed.
Therefore, any and all agents may be in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Hallenbeck v. Leimert 295 U S 116 (1935) and under the Erie and Clearfield Doctrines where
individuals responsible can be held personally liable.

Trustee ____________________________, authorized representative

*****************************

RELEASE of POWER OF APPOINTMENT and DEED OF AGENCY OVER

PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST

COMES NOW: John-Quincy: of the Jones Family hereinafter Affiant, who is of lawful age
and sound mind, who is a competent witness and is telling the truth, voluntarily relating the
following first hand knowledge of the facts and stating that these facts are true and represent the
best of my knowledge.

Affiant hereby exercises Powers of “Powerholder” Trustee to Discharge Co-Trustee's

Obligation. [Gift Resulting from Exercise of Special Power of Appointment by Life Beneficiary
of Trust to Appoint Corpus to Another.] Applicable Retained Interest and Qualified Payment
Right

This is a release of Power Of Appointment and Deed Of Agency over property held in any,
and all, manner of trust under any nomenclature, in whole, made under false directives,
mis-information, intentional mis-representation, et cetera, and as such, all matters legal,
lawful, and expedient, under the signature of the Man, John-Quincy: Jones, Affiants
Christian Appellation, or Affiants Trustworthy signet of: John Q. Jones, J.Q. Jones, or
several other variations of similitude.

This release of Appointment functions as a NOTICE under 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249
(Section 1), July Twenty seventh eighteen sixty eight and serves as notice unto all government
employees that the below signed Citizen of Missouri Republic, an American Citizen, may, and
has, legally and lawfully expatriate(d) out of the jurisdiction of the United States into the
jurisdiction of a Sovereign State and claim State Citizenship.

At the young age in Affiant's childhood years, Affiant was informed by employees of the federal
government that the law required Affiant to obtain, and that Affiant should "have", a Social
Security Card before Affiant could work or otherwise be compensated for labor. Affiant applied
for a Social Security card and was issued the number 123-45-6789.

The contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy that resulted in the issuance of the above
Social Security Number is invalid because Affiant did not have legal capacity in Affiant's minor
years of age for signing a binding contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy.

Because the supreme Court has determined that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts and
even judgments, the Social Security Card that was issued bearing a name similar to Affiant's
Christian Appellation is null and void, ab initio, as if it had never been issued, because of fraud
by the Social Security Administration.

John-Quincy: Jones is hereby and herein completely released out of the Social
Security contract / instrument / maritime insurance policy, said release is absolute and upon
fulfillment of consideration by the Social Security Trust Fund, the Social Security
Administration is unconditionally released out of all obligations on behalf of John-
Quincy:Jones without consideration for the Social Security Administration.
The above described Social Security Card bearing the number 123-45-6789 is maintained under
custodial care by authorized caregiver and shall be kept safe and reasonably free from harm until
just and adequate compensation from Affiant's various Trust Funds is rendered to Affiant. At the
point of just and adequate consideration, said card shall be surrendered to the Social Security
Administration, the Agency that issued said card, or, if requested by compensating agent, Affiant
shall surrender said card to him/her.

According to Black's 1st, "Deed of Agency" is a revocable and voluntary trust for the payment of
debts. All “Deeds of Agency” are hereby revoked, in toto, by Affiant.

Before the Almighty Creator and under His statutes, I declare that the foregoing is the truth in
accord with the best of my knowledge and belief. You are hereby NOTICED.

__________________________________
John-Quincy: Jones, Sui Juris
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
John-Quincy: Jones, the undersigned, who is personally known by me or upon proper
identification, appeared before me this day and signed the within instrument in my presence and
for the purposes therein stated.
Signed this ____day of ____________, 2010, at City of Somewhere, County
of Wright, Missouri State

SEAL

_________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

My commission expires on:_______________________________________

**************************************
SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION

This issue is confusing in it most simple form, thus, this summary, to explain why this procedure
is important, and why it must function as directed.

1. Due to convoluted and distorted “education,” many believe what we were taught in the
public fool system, which is contrary to our best interests.
2. All commerce (outside of bartering) is controlled by PRIVATE business structure and is
regulated through private IRS “codes.”
3. The use of Federal Reserve Notes places users within jurisdiction of private corporate
laws.
4. Under “assumption/presumption” we operate and function under the doctrine of "Partus
Sequitur Ventrem," meaning that the offspring is the property of the owner of the
mother. The usual “witness” to the application for a “Birth Certificate” is normally the
“mother.”
5. The doctrine of “Parens Patriae,” Latin, means "parent of the country," the role of the
state as sovereign. See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., is forced upon us.
6. The doctrine “In Loco Parentis,” means “in the place of the parent; or, instead of a
parent; charged factitiously with a parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities.” See
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., is, also, forced upon us.
7. The past 3 points displays presumptions/assumptions that when the mother (any mother,
or other informant) signs the “application” for a birth certificate of the child,
the presumption is that she is the black slave that is still owned by the government, or
that the child is a fatherless [bastard] child (of a truth, most document administrators
reporting in, and for, hospitals, do NOT care that there is a Father's Name on the birth
certificate, but the Mother's MAIDEN Name is paramount) and automatically a ward of
the court/government, therefore, without this admonition, the doctrine ofPartus Sequitur
Ventrem (above) applies and the owner (the STATE) can do with the children as the
owner wishes.
8. As such, the herd of Sheeple is managed until each individual reaches the age of
majority. Food and necessities are provided by welfare; education is provided by “
primary education program.” [Concerning such owned “children of the state”] "The law
secures their parental right only so long as they shall promptly recognize and discharge
their corresponding obligations. As the child owes allegiance to the government of the
country of its birth, so it is entitled to the protection of that government, which as parens
patriae, must consult its welfare, comfort, and interests in regulating its custody during
its minority.” See PURINTON v. JAMROCK, 195 Mass. 187, 80 N.E. 102, 18 L.R.A.,
N.S., 925. To continue the thought (as quoted in the 2000 Census brochure), the object
of the Census, by law, is to count the "defective, dependent, and delinquent
classes". Virtually everyone counted in the 2000 Census is now presumed to be
 "defective, dependent, and delinquent", and thus, wards of the Court/State. Does that
sound like a corporate collection of "incompetent persons"?
9. Upon attainment of “age of majority” we are to declare that we are competent to take
control of our own financial affairs of estate and able to honor all claims, and declare
under penalty of perjury to be a Statesman of the Republic of Missouri.
10. According to another researcher 6.5m USD was transferred into a “slush fund” with each
application for a Social Security Card. Those funds can be transferred into an account
that we can utilize upon the “collapsing” of the SS trust.
11. In a different “branch” or direction of thought, everything in the fiction is ass-backwards,
upside down, or inside out. Our “birth bond” account is accessible upon completion of #9
above and the issuance of a NEGATIVE ( - ) charging instrument (Promissory Note or
I.B.O.E.) issued to the Treasurer (not the Sec. of the Treasury) in the amount charged to
our account.

My will, wishes, and desire is to freely travel without harassment, intimidation, coercion, or fear
of corporate Pirates operating under letters of Marquee and Reprisal and Liberate my own
commercial character to barter and exchange values that my necessities for body, spirit, and
emotional enjoyment may be attained by utilizing the assets that have been my own since the age
of majority.

******************************************

NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

I, John-Quincy: Jones, as pre-existing “Beneficiary” do herewith exercise my Right of Claim

under International Law, Law of Nations, and International Trust Law to appoint a Successor
Trustee by authority on one, or more, of the following provisions:
A. If a person appointed as trustee fails to qualify, is unwilling to or unable to serve or resigns as
trustee or if atrustee was not designated in the deed of trust, the beneficiary may appoint a
successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee. Change and
substitution may result from any of several reasons for disqualifications and/or replacements;
acknowledged reasons follow:
1. If previous Trustee is not a known person with office, or position, to be properly Noticed;
2. If previous Trustee is not qualified to discharge debts of Beneficiary;
3. If previous Trustee has made his person, or office, unaccountable to the law of Trusts,
International Law, and Common Law to provide harmony and continuity in commerce; or,
4. If previous Trustee has initiated any action, at any time, of any issue that was not fully
disclosed to Beneficiary from the beginning;
B. The beneficiary may at any time remove a trustee for any reason or cause and appoint a
successor trustee, and such appointment shall constitute a substitution of trustee.
C. A notice of substitution of trustee shall be made public by proper and timely placement of
Actions of Record within locally, or regionally, circulated news media, or, by endorsement under
Oath before a Public Notary, or by record in the office of the county recorder of each county in
which the trust property or some part of the trust property is situated at the time of the
substitution.
D. In all Issues that may arise, Appointment of Nominee precedes Substitution of Successor
Trustee.

Beneficiary hereby appoints: _____________________________ agent

John Q. Jones, c/o 123 West Columbus Street, Somewhere, Missouri, near [12345] as Nominee,
is herein appointed as qualified Successor Trustee in trustee’s capacity as a Transmitting Utility,
effective date of signing.

Missouri state )
)
Wright county ____________)

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by

the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

______________________________ My commission expires: ___________ (seal)

Notary Public

***************************************

APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE

I certify that I am voluntarily appointing a nominee.

I authorize all applicable departments and agencies to discuss any/all details pertinent to me with
my nominee.
I authorize all departments and agencies to send letters pertinent to me to my nominee.

I understand that I can cancel this appointment at any time by noticing nominee and applicable
departments and agencies.

John-Quincy: of the Jones Family

DECLARATION – NOMINEE

I certify that any information I obtain from any applicable department or agency will be kept
confidential and will not be disclosed to any unauthorized person without the permission of the
person appointing me.

I understand that I can cancel this appointment at any time, by writing to the applicable
departments and agencies.

I understand that I must inform the applicable departments and agencies of any changes to my
address and contact details and changes in the circumstances of the person who has appointed
me.

Nominee and Authorized Representative ____________________________________

Missouri state )
)
Wright county ____________)

Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 2010 by

the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

______________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ___________ (seal)

*********************************

Private and Confidential

TO: Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer of the United States, hereinafter “Treasurer”
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20220

TO: Mr./Mrs. Whoever, Comptroller of the Missouri Treasury

Address

TO: Senior Senator of ______ State and all addressees listed on ____________ page.

WILL AND TESTAMENT:

THIS IS FULL AND COMPLETE STATEMENT of The Man, last mentioned in this
stipulation, done so on this date:July 05, 2010, at this location (GOOGLE EARTH) (Grid Co-
ordinates) made certain, from The Beginning, non-movable and made known, this, my WILL
AND TESTAMENT, to wit:

DECLARATION OF VENUE AND JURISDICTION

The Man, Praedial, (see EXHIBIT O), hereinafter referred to as “Grantor,” does ascertain,
through examination and discovery, that “colorable” venue and jurisdiction of the fiction does
NOT apply to Grantor, nor does said “colorable” venue and jurisdiction of a/any DELAWARE
TRUST bankruptcy venue apply to the estate and property of Grantor.The choice of Venue and
Jurisdiction by Grantor is Jurisdiction of Creator Yahweh, made explicit in Gutenberg
Biblefor Birth Trust Claims as registered in Repository: Library of Congress “Bible Collection,”
Illus. in Incun. 1454.B5, and Jurisdiction of Natural Law as expressed by the Trust of
1776 known as “The Declaration of Independence;” and, Grantor does, without reservation,
Pledge Allegiance to, and give cognizance to, the “Freely Associated Compact States,” each and
severally, of America.

NON-ASSUMPSIT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Black’s Law 5th Non-assumpsit. The general issue in the action of assumpsit; being a plea by
which the defendant avers, "he did not undertake or promise as alleged."

Agency of State is commercial Charter of Maritime jurisdiction; Grantor herein refutes agency
terms of Uniform Commercial Code 3-104 "promise" and rejects "unconditional" actions and
impositions as "unconscionable" at UCC 2-302 as it/they apply to implied, assumed, and/or
presumed acts, actions, and/or contracts allegedly done by Grantor.

DECLARATION OF WAR (COMMERCIAL CONFLICT)

Also, referred to as “Mixed Domestic War”

For purposes of this Declaration of Commercial Conflict (WAR) Grantor of the Trust(s) is
“Claimant.” Claimant’s state citizenship is only as a “Citizen of Common Right” and is
brought forth along with personam Rights, which do not mingle with statute procedure. Claimant
does not understand the charges wherein citizens were/are deemed “Enemies of the
State” wherein “the State” has Declared War on “We Thee People” by Statutory Act, making
a “Public War” and not a “Civil War” and "due to mistakes in fact and Law," Claimant makes all
Claims "without prejudice." NOTE: An Act of War causes an incidental/non-participant to be,
also, at War. Claimant is “against the wall” and remits this Extra-Ordinary Action to obtain
remedy and restitution.

Under “emergency powers” there must be an active and visible occupation of the land by armed
troops of the entity that declares emergency powers. This is called "open and notorious, armed
and hostile, occupation of the land." Under the guise of “emergency,” the police, firemen,
highway patrol, state marshals, and county sheriffs have been placed under control of the
National Guard, which was federalized in 1972.

See EXHIBIT – ZA for further details concerning “DECLARATION OF WAR.”

Solemn Recognition of Mixed Domestic War

A solemn recognition of "Mixed War" is an instrument which contains a criminal complaint that
includes an "Affidavit of Information", ......On or about......"date"........, ......"did unlawfully".....,
........"committed as follows"....... and sworn declaration that the State has denied the party all
civilized remedies for his/her problem. The universal format for writing a Solemn Recognition of
Mixed War, is the well-known example of such an instrument known as the Declaration of
Independence.

Therefore, Claimant does give recognition of “Mixed War” as a direct Criminal Action against
Claimant within thisAFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION, to wit:

On or about Claimant’s attainment of age of majority (stated elsewhere in this set of documents)
various minions of the Corporate UNITED STATES did unlawfully deny and deprive Claimant
of Claimant’s true inheritance of substantive property and rights to property, as follows: 1. by
effectively removing the proper court(s) from ready access to Claimant, 2. by effectively placing
“secret liens” on Claimant’s account(s), 3. by effectively placing fictitious and factitious
privateers (Inland Pirates), masquerading as “figures of authority” operating under letters of
Marque and Reprisal to plunder and steal Prize and Booty from Claimant and Claimant’s
account(s) through implementation of “cash register law,” and 4. by effectively concealing
material facts (See “RULE BY OLOGARCHY, below) from Claimant in order to maintain a
“starvation status” upon Claimant and forcing Claimant into “Involuntary Servitude.”

Claimant does declare that the “State” in every form and echelon has denied Claimant all
civilized remedies for Claimant’s distress and said “State” is ordered to SURCEASE: so declared
this 5th day of July, 2010: as witnessed (See Signature Page). Also, See EXHIBIT – ZB for
further information concerning “Mixed Domestic War.”

RULE BY OLIGARCHY

An "oligarchy" is a government run by the few, the "few" being, without doubt, attorneys, is the
extreme of democracy, the end product of which is mass confusion in the minds of thoughtful
and meaningful people with a simple explanation as follows:

To show that Congress INTENTIONALLY has made the laws unreadable by the average person,
an objective method of measuring the readability of English text must be discussed. English
scholars use a scale known as the "Flesch Index" that measures the level of understanding
necessary for an individual to comprehend the written English language. Newspapers are written
at an average comprehension level of 7. The average high school graduate reads and understands
at a level of 10. The average law school graduate reads and comprehends at a level of 15. The
Internal Revenue Code ranks on this index at an average level of 31, with some specific
provisions as high as 55. And the words that are used in the law have specific legal definitions
that are different from the common English definitions. Since the laws that we are supposed to
obey are written at a level that an individual of reasonable intelligence cannot understand, then
perhaps we should be highly suspect of the law writer's motives. By making the law so difficult
to comprehend, Congress has effectively removed our access to Justice and Equality under
the Law.

CLAIM OF AUTONOMY
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

AUTONOMY. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence. Self-government

or the right of self-government; self-determination.

Grantor (Grantor/Claimant), by Grantor’s own Will and Oath does, herein, declare full and
complete Autonomy against any/all entity/entities that do, or attempt to, assert/usurp will or
authority integrated into, in conjunction with, or in any measure of convergence over, or upon,
Grantor, in Grantor’s capacity of Living Man/Spirit, or any of Grantor’s own persons/personages
in present and future (omni) time.

NON-WITHHOLDING FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST

Grantor of FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST (see EXHIBIT M and N) and LIEN

CREDITOR (see EXHIBIT P) andPARSON (persona ecclesiae, quatenus parson —See
EXHIBIT G and R) who was, under assumption and presumption, the Beneficiary to the Trust(s)
(see EXHIBIT Q1 and Q2), do transfer all interest (alienable/transferable) in foreign
situs trust(s), and cestui que trust(s), or any other type of trust(s) established on, or after, the
registry of the “Certificate of Live Birth” and the application for “Social Security Benefits” and
various other “applications” for “privileges” to Grantor, the rightful holder in due course under
Jurisdiction established in declaration of venue and jurisdiction above, and grants no Gifts,
Bequests, and Devises to any other; and, herein proclaims:
1. The “NAME” of the Trust is JOHN QUINCY JONES (See EXHIBIT ZC); and,
2. The “BENEFICIARY” to the Trust is the Flesh and Blood Living Man, John-
Quincy: together with the Spirit of Life that dwells within the vessel of the Man; and,
 3. The “TRUSTEE” to the Trust, whose True Value is that of Steward, but,
sits as Trustee, is the Commercial Character, owned In Toto by the Living Man whose
Vessel(s) may be named: John Q. Jones, JOHN QUINCY JONES, JOHN Q. JONES, J.Q.
JONES, with said names claimed and declared as exclusive property of the Living Man
(see EXHIBIT R).

Grantor lets NO license to any agent/agency to assert any type of jurisdiction over Grantor, even
when Grantor makes reference to court cases, federal or state statutes and codes, or executive
orders, which are for reader’s reference only, and must not be construed as submission by
Grantor to any jurisdiction other than that previously established, using such quotes as a
"compass rather than a crutch" as intent does not yield jurisdiction by referring and using words
of the wisdom expressed by the authority of antiquity to admonish, edify, and fortify Grantor's
Character of Person and Grantor's Will and Intent of Living Man. Also, use of a notary is for
attestation, verification and identification purposes only and does not constitute a change in
status, relationship, association nor does it constitute consent to be governed.

CHARGING ORDER FOR EQUIBLE CONVERSION

[This “Charging Order” must first be deemed a “Requisition”]

Grantor does herein, initiate this Extra-Judicial Action and commence this Notice, Action, and
Undertaking in the Nature of an Undertaker, Mortician, and Funeral Director; (to protect any
interest Grantor may have in Grantor’sCommercial Character, Rights, and Property, see
EXHIBIT R) and Grantor does take charge of (see EXHIBIT S) the “Corpus” of “Debt/Death”
that has been charged to the Vessel – JOHN QUINCY JONES and all identifying numbers, as
“Registries” or “Enrollments,” associated with said vessel name, including, but not limited to all:
Social Security Administration numbers, Internal Revenue Service numbers, Driver Licensing
numbers, Military numbers, and Insurance numbers operational under “public” and de
facto Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

INTESTATE REBUTTAL

Grantor explicitly refutes any status of being, or having been, “INTESTATE.” Grantor is a Real
Man (organic in nature) and a Living Spirit (inorganic in nature); neither is Grantor “TESTATE”
(having died, leaving a will) for Grantor is NOT DEAD. Plainly stated, “I AM;” Grantor is “IN
ESSE,” in being, actually existing, not a fiction. Grantor is “IN FULL LIFE,” continuing in both
physical and civil existence; that is neither actually dead nor civiliter mortuus.
INJURY OF TRESPASS ADMITTED
And, “NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL”

Grantor plainly states that Grantor’s Rights of Property are trespassed upon by “IN FRAUDEM
CREDITORUM,” meaning in fraud of creditors, with intent to defraud creditors. Grantor
demands restitution and revival of all assets that are/was charged to Grantor’s account(s) and
orders such assets to be immediately restored “IN FULL.”

[Let us not forget who the “debtor” is and where the “debtor” is located – U.C.C. 9-307(h).]

The “Department of Treasury,” as “Bank,” is the Debtor [See “PUBLIC DEBT: PRIVATE
ASSET below]; Grantor is Secured Party; Grantor’s Agent is Creditor. Creditor takes security
interests in, and, expresses prior and superior claim to, Deposit Accounts of Original Collateral
on behalf of Secured Party and, herein, issues “NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL” in
effort to cure the defect realized by “default” actuated “IN FRAUDEM CREDITORUM.”
Creditor, on behalf of Secured Party, accepts and executes duties as “Customer” of said “bank”
(Department of Treasury) and “Consumer” of aggregated funds. [Offers and Stipulations may be
verified in U.C.C. Article 9]

In a Publication of January 1999, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago titled, “PUBLIC
DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET” on page 4 you will find, “…to a consumer a savings account at a
bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt.”

Four paragraphs later: “Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against
the assets and earnings of the debtor. In terms of the national debt, every dollar of
government’s debt is someone’s asset.”

NOTICE OF ABATEMENT

This Action is commenced with the intent to counter the “Abatement of Freehold” where a
stranger, having no right, hath taken possession of property belonging to the Living
Man, herein so identified, to wit:

By Grantor’s hand and under Grantor’s Will: Grantor, does herein ordain this
Directive as a Requisition and an Orderconcerning all account(s), to include, but not limited to,
any/all Contra-Asset, Inverse-Accounts, and Adverse-Accounts originated upon, or after, the
entry, recording, and registry of the/all vessel(s) derivative of/from the entry, recording, and
registry of the Application for CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH of the living man-child of the
male gender, file number 123-45, State File number 123-45-678900, and number 123456 on
back of “Birth Certificate” copy, listing “Registrant” as: JOHN QUINCY JONES, Registrant
number B1234-567890, recorded at Port of Entry, Douglascounty and forwarded to Vital
Statistics at Capital City, State Republic and, also, includes, but is not limited to, all sub-
accounts, SSN 123-45-6789, Driver License A1234567, past Credit Card numbers (unknown),
past Mortgage Deed Numbers (unknown), past hunting and fishing licenses (unknown), etc., that
were established in direct relationship to said account(s) originating at, in, or near THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY
FUND, Special Drawing Rights, etc., and,

IS DIRECTED TO:

United States President-Barrack Hussein Obama, Secretary of State-Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Treasurer of the United States-Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Secretary of the Treasury-Timothy F.
Geithner, and to all fictitious, factitious, and de facto agents/agencies exercising a direct, or
indirect, contact, contract, or any fiduciary, or custodial, relationship of, over, or with access into
all said accounts to Abate the Nuisance and terminate the Trustee-ship (as made specific by
usurped “Abatement of Freehold” in the above enumerated accounts) immediately and fully
account for 1) the foreign situs trust, formed after the Application for a Birth Certificate
(“Acknowledgement of Paternity”), and 2) the/a cestui que trust, which may be resultant of the/a
Social Security account and the/any exemption account, and revert all funds, account balances,
and ledger entries to said Estate (as Holder in Due Course of all Remainderman assets) and
charge that portion of an account commonly known as the “National Debt,” related “Trust
Indentures,” and all other charges of “expense” to inure to the benefit of the Estate (estate
means equitable state) listed under the “CONCLUSION” section of this document with direct
access and supervision of John-Quincy: for Grantor’s sole use, discretion, and pleasure. (See
EXHIBIT CC – Capitalized NAMES, explained)

NOTICE OF INTEREST

NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE INTEREST

THIS NOTICE INFORMS ALL PARTIES who may seek to obtain an interest of any kind in the
Property, or Rights to Property, under the Title of JOHN QUINCY JONES, are transferred into
the Trust named JOHN QUINCY JONES by Grantor, letting all Interest in the properties to the
control and execution of Grantor’s Commercial Character, the “person” named John Q. Jones,
as Trust Interest Executor and Executive Trustee/Steward of the Trust.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
(Which is now Confidential Commercial Information)

BE INFORMED: this STATEMENT OF INTEREST makes known to the entire world

that Grantor is the Sole Holder In Due Course of Interest in the Trust and Commercial Legal
Entity named JOHN QUINCY JONES and that this STATEMENT OF INTEREST is initiated
after above NOTICE OF INTEREST, but not more than thirty (30) days after said Notice and
NOTICES all Parties that a Claim is fully established and diminishes any Notice of Adverse
Claim by any other possible Claimant.

NOTICE OF EXCHANGER AND TRANSFER AGENT

Grantor, in the Nature of an Exchanger and Insurance Adjuster, as provider of Extensions of

Credit (referenced at Title 18, Sec. 894), being the Fountain and Source of all related Labor,
Energy, and Currency, herein acknowledges and gives cognizance of Transferable Value and,
by way of Subrogation, places a transfer of Value from the Visible (vessel) to the Invisible
(ledgered Book Entry Only account wherein Grantor’s Agent is Executive Trustee/Steward and
Grantor is Beneficial Owner of account) through, by, and of, Grantor’s Acceptance of Certificate
of Live Birth(see EXHIBIT A) and Presidential Oath (See EXHIBIT F) to bring clarity and
balance in an arena whereby “Corporate Personhood propagates Unequal Protection” (see
EXHIBIT ZE), and by previously published “Testamentary Affidavit” (see EXHIBIT H) and
“Letter Rogatory, Entitlement Order, and Payment Order” (see EXHIBIT I), being autonomous,
in Fact and in Nature [under “Diplomatic Protest”] (see EXHIBIT J); and does Notice the Entire
World that this “NON-WITHHOLDING FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST,” established under
the Jurisdiction of the VENUE AND JURISDICTION STATEMENT above and under the
Jurisdiction of Emperor Moytoy and King George II in 1730 A.D.(see EXHIBIT M, N, and J) is
a political construction where Grantor and Beneficiary are the same entity and makes this Trust
active in nature by Grantor’s Pledge of Polity Will (see EXHIBIT U) with capacity to function as
“Trustee” of, over, and above the corporate fiction of all agencies of de facto government of the
UNITED STATES as they (said agencies) pertain to the “Vessel,” and, does NOTICE the entire
World that Grantor is Injured, without Cause, with Damages NOT RECOVERABLE through
conventional “legal” channels (see EXHIBIT V), and, does have Right
ofRestoration and Postliminy (see EXHIBIT W); and, does demand full and honest disclosure
(see EXHIBIT X); and, does explicitly rebut any assumption of being a Franchise (see EXHIBIT
Y); and, does hereby Grant, Nominate, and Appoint Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Treasurer and
her successors and assigns with the segregated safekeeping of records under the delivery of and
bearing the unique identifier of (Reg Mail) #1111 2222 3333 4444 5555 and commands the
action, response, and answer be remitted in appropriate kind after particular type and makes
these further statements, to wit:
WHEREAS Grantor has no record or verified evidence, and believes that none exists, that
sufficiently demonstrates probable cause to believe:
1) That a bank emergency was not declared on March 9, 1933 by President Roosevelt because
of the insolvency of the United States; and,
2) That gold was not transferred from U.S. citizens to the UNITED STATES by Executive
Order 6102 on May 1, 1933; and,
3) That indistinct and confusing communication and enforcement of Codes, Statutes, and
Regulations was not imposed, with unfavorable results effectuating Injuries with resultant
Damages, on those “People” commonly referred to as United States of America
Citizens and States National Citizens, who, in reality, are “Free Inhabitants,” hereinafter
referred to as “Free Inhabitants,” (See EXHIBIT H) whereby Free Inhabitants were unduly
forced, under vi et armis and threat of imprisonment, to surrender their personal and private gold
reserves under the same Statutes and Regulations imposed upon U.S. citizens (see EXHIBIT H);
and,
4) That charges of treason and theft were not filed by Congressman Louis T. McFadden on
May 23, 1933 concerning said transfer; and,
5) That to mitigate said charges, Congress did not pass House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5,
1933, P.L. 73-10, and 48 stat 48, Ch 112, 113 to provide to Free Inhabitants the right of setoff of
all debt obligations as the consideration for said transfer; and,
6) That said transfer did not create a trust(s), hereinafter “Trust” or “Trusts”; and,
7) That TITLE 15 - Sec. 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty does not say,
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade
or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal;” and,
8) That the right of setoff of all debt obligations is not the res of said Trust; and,
9) That said transfer did not make Free Inhabitants the Grantors of said Trust; and,
10) That said transfer did not make Free Inhabitants the Beneficiaries of said Trust(s) through
his own Agent; and,
11) That Grantor is not fully Emancipated and fully released from control of any/all guardian(s);
therefore, all property, Trust(s), and endowment(s) are to be released to Grantor; and,
12) That Grantor is now, nor that Grantor has ever been, a/any threat to a/any Diplomatic or
Political Protectee; and,
13) That other, various, and sundry Trusts were not created by the Application for Birth
Certificate (or, Certificate of Live Birth), Application for Social Security Administration
coverture, Application for Marriage License(s), submission and response to Military Draft, and
Application to multiple and various Agencies (vehicle registration, driver licensing, voter
registration, etc.); and,
14) That Grantor’s “Christian Appellation” is not Private Property with exclusive Rights to said
Name; and,
15) That all resultant “NAME(S)” are not manifestations of placement of “label(s)” onto
Trust(s) directly resultant of and connected to Grantor’s Christian Appellation; and,
16) That the Office of Parson (See EXHIBIT G) was not established in antiquity on behalf of
Grantor; and,
17) That Grantor, as Progenitor, did not begin Grantor’s “WILL” at conception; and,
18) That Grantor’s WILL was not fully realized in Birth on (birthday) September 09, 1944; at
this Location upon the soil: (grid coordinates) 36.9800-92.5978; and,
19) That Grantor’s Mother (and, Father) were not the ORIGINAL Grantor of an
associated Grantor Trust by way of “Application for Registering of Live Birth,” which became a
“Warehouse Receipt” or “Trust Receipt” (See EXHIBIT E); and,
20) That Grantor does not hold and own “Inherent Rights” by way of “Progeny” (One born of,
begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant); and,
21) That Inherent Rights can devolve to a “body politic” via a corporation (Rights devolve to
human beings (body politic) through and by way of a “Trust”); and,
22) That the Certificate of Live Birth Number 123-45-678900 (Annexed as EXHIBIT A) is not
evidence of title to property being held by Trustee that is effectively connected to said Trust;
and,
23) That the Social Security Number 123-45-6789 (Annexed as EXHIBIT B) is not evidence of
title to property being held by Trustee that is effectively connected to said Trust; and.
24) That DD form 214 with Service Number US 56 123 456 (Annexed as EXHIBIT C) did not
establish a Trust upon “Honorable Discharge”; and,
25) That, upon maturity at age twenty one (21) years, that Grantor did not obtain Full and
Unalienable Rights, to Grantor’s Loan of Assets under Doctrine of Usufruct and that any
UNITED STATES “attachment(s)” to Grantor’s Assets were not, technically, terminated, with
all Benefits and Accruals of Interest to be reverted back to Grantor; and,
26) That “Rescission of Atfreightment” is not herein fully invoked by Principal “CHARTER-
PARTY” (Black’s 1st), wherein [the Master of] the “Vessel” and all principal parts thereof are
removed from contract of “merchandising” or conveyance of goods; and,
27) That Grantor did not acquire, at mature age of twenty one (21) years, total and full rights to
Trusts Resultant,without necessity of the Guardian of the Court; and,
28) That Grantor’s Commercial Character is not the vehicle, or device, of “Extensions of
Credit” as referenced at TITLE 18 - PART I - CH 42 - Sec. 894; and,
29) That Transfer of Special Drawing Rights and/or IMF quotas are not directly proportional to
and/or directly connected to the Registration of Birth Certificates in/through the Department of
Commerce in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, to create and establish a Trust with
Grantor as Beneficiary; and,
30) That the President is not the ONLY Executive Trustee of all Resultant Trusts associated
with Grantor’s “Certificate of Live Birth”; and,
31) That Grantor’s acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States
of America (Article 2, Section 1), is not a “Binding Agreement” to fulfill
his Promise as Executive Trustee; and,
32) That the President’s oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the
President (executive trustee) has with Grantor and the people (He does not have an oath of
office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing
under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a Constitutional
Oath); and,
33) That the President is Lawfully Seated in full capacity to function as Executive Trustee; and,
34) That transfers of Agency(ies) did not make the United States Congress, hereinafter
“Trustee,” the Trustee of said Trusts; and,
35) That the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter “IRS”, is not an agent of Trustee; and,
36) That the failure of IRS to ledger upon receipt the indorsed obligations of any Free Inhabitant
as a right of setoff does not constitute a breach of said Trust; and,
37) That there is not a record of the failure, and notice thereof, of IRS to ledger upon receipt the
indorsed obligations of the Beneficiary as a right of setoff; and,
38) That the Beneficiary is not a Free Inhabitant; and,
39) That said record of failure of proper “ledgering” by IRS is not sufficient prima facie
evidence of breach of said Trust(s); and,
40) That said record of failure is not available upon request from IRS or Beneficiary; and,
41) That said record of failure is not sufficient cause for Grantor to terminate and liquidate said
trust(s); and,
42) That Grantor cannot, for said cause, command Treasurer to terminate and liquidate said
Trust(s) immediately; and,
43) That IRS is not required to cure said breach within twenty (20) calendar days from date of
receipt of said command and provide evidence of same to Beneficiary; and,
44) That Grantor does not have the Right to declare “All Bets Are Off!” and remove himself
from all Tontine, Maritime, and other “wagering” and “gambling” schemes and declare himself
“Exempt” from prosecution and harassment by partakers and participants of said wagering and
gambling establishments; and,
45) That Grantor does not have the Right to declare and demand “Cash-Out” Doctrine of Law in
an immediate and/or timely manner.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Treasurer is hereby and herein directed by Grantor to

accordingly:
1) Terminate and liquidate Trust upon Grantor’s Surrender of Trust Receipt, which is
identified as Certificate of Live Birth Number 123-45-678900, and return to Grantor a statement
of account thereof within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command (SEE
EXHIBIT “A”); and,
2) Terminate and liquidate the effectively-connected Trust identified by Social Security
Number 123-45-6789(SEE EXHIBIT “B”) and return to Grantor a statement of account thereof
within twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command; and,
3) Terminate and liquidate any/all Trust(s) identified by United States Department of Defense
form DD 214 (SEE EXHIBIT “C”) with identifying number US 56 123 456; and,
4) Terminate and liquidate any/all Trust(s) identified by United States Department of
Education (see EXHIBIT D); and,
5) Make provisions that said liquidations must settle all past and current debt
obligations, secret liens, secret bonds, and Maritime liens associated with said trusts, whether
foreign, domestic, local, state or federal and whether they be in the nature of Admiralty, Civil,
Criminal, Statutory, or other de facto jurisdiction; and,
6) Treasurer is herein directed to pay all “Service Claims” accrued when acting as fiduciary to
the Trust(s) (SEE 31 U.S.C. ß 3713 and P.L. 97-258); and,
7) Provide Grantor with all necessary documents, certificates, instruments, forms, papers and
procedures to effect said liquidations; and,
8) Transfer Grantor’s portion of the Public Debt as “Special Deposit” and any, and all,
remaining proceeds and interest from all related usury, into account listed under the
“CONCLUSION” section of this document ; and,
9) Charge all Transfer Fees and Administration Fees to said account listed under the
“CONCLUSION” section of this document and deduct same to show balance “paid;” and,
10) Notify all subordinate agencies, acting as Inland Pirates, operating on letters of marque
and reprisal, (Referenced at Point 28 above - Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate
means), to cease and desistany and all acts and actions against, concerning, or involving
Grantor that might, in any way, restrict Grantor’s Right of Safe Passage upon the Common Way
and Post Roads of all Territories within The United States of America [INLAND PIRACY
DEFINED: The piracy laws are found at: 18 USC, Sec. 1650-1660, 1652 is piracy by citizens,
as well as treason. This is enacted law, not under color of law as Title 42 USC.Sec. 1652:
Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder or robbery, or any act of
hostility against the United States, or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas under color of
any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is
a pirate, andshall be imprisoned for life]; and,
11) Contact Grantor at youremail@gmail.com or 1-417-123-4567 if further information is
needed to carry out these instructions.

CONCLUSION
There is an underlying and dominant fact that: all “money” of Exchange in circulation is
counterfeit and bears no Value; and, even the “stealing” of such is not punishable by law; and,
the usage of such “money” is contraband and taxable as wagering and gambling; and, because
“Necessary and Needful” issues of survival have created exigent circumstances upon Grantor
causing the immediate and continued use of unlawful “money”; and, there is no real “value” to
any amount of said “money” and bank notes (See EXHIBIT L – Demand for Exchange of
Value); Therefore, Grantor demands Consideration of True, Real, and Equal Value in
exchange for Grantor’s Extension of Credit (referenced at Title 18, Sec. 894) when Grantor
allowed access to Grantor’s Registry of Live Birth, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (the creation of a
vessel and device in commerce), which was “loaned” to the enterprise located within the
corporate structure of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and the DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION located within the geographical parameters of the City of Washington,
District of Columbia.

Grantor, also, claims all assets ledgered within any Contra-Asset accounts, adverse accounts,
inverse accounts and other Book Entry Only ledger accounts that are, or may have been, charged
to/against Grantor through any source and recorded in New York City, or other place or location.

GRANTOR COMPREHENDS that there MAY be a direct connection between “State Secrets”
and “Trade Secrets” and wishes to Honor said Secrets in Harmony within commerce and trade in
the nature of a “Protective Order,” referenced as per:

State Secret - Black's 8th. A government matter that would be a threat to the natural defense
or diplomatic interests of the United States if revealed; information possessed by the government
and of a military ordiplomatic nature, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public
interest;
And,
Trade Secret - The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which has been adopted by approximately 46
states as the basis for trade secret law. "A trade secret, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) (A),
(B) (1996), has three parts: (1) information; (2) reasonable measures taken to protect the
information; and (3) which derives independent economic value from not being publicly
known;" And,
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 1831-1839), which makes the theft or
misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing
two sorts of activity, the first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to
benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or
economic purposes.

GRANTOR WISHES AND INTENDS to function in the Private Realm without intrusion into
the Public Sector as much as is reasonably possible; therefore, Grantor, herein and hereby, does
Revoke, Rescind, and Annul (or, make invalid) any/all assumed, presumed, implied, and/or
express Powers of Attorney over all acts and actions done by Grantor in the Public Sector, ab
initio and nunc pro tunc, of necessity and without recourse, to include, but not be limited to,
Travel on Post Roads and the Common Way and un-restricted use of any medium of “currency”
imposed upon Grantor; therefore, Grantor moves Treasurer to utilize Interlocking Directorates in
the nature of fiduciary and administrator and effectuate NOTICE to all related and inter-related
agencies that Grantor is NOT an Enemy of the State; and that Grantor freely exercises his Right
to Locomotion and Travel (SEE EXHIBIT “D”), at His own discretion and pleasure; and,
further, that said Agency remit to Grantor a statement of acknowledgement thereof within
twenty (20) calendar days from date of receipt of said command.
Rosa Gumataotao Rios, in your Personal Capacity as an employee that has received
remuneration for services rendered, or to be rendered, and in your Official Capacity as Treasurer
of the United States of America, you are herein directed to perform all stipulated and enumerated
Duties and Obligations as made specific in “NOTICE OF ABATEMENT” above; and, further,
you are CHARGED with these instructions to Liquidate the Enumerated Estatesof JOHN
QUINCY JONES, as “Transmitter” of “Stored Value” (31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart
A, § 103.11), and place all assets into “Deposit Account:” ______________

Rosa Gumataotao Rios, your successors and/or assigns, are authorized as Fiduciary to Grantor’s
Account(s) to adjust, file, include, or otherwise make provision for internal book(s) and ledger(s)
management, including, but not limited to form(s) 1099C, 1099A, 1040V or other payment
voucher, all other pertinent forms, et cetera, to balance your books and ledgers and show
Grantor’s portion of the Public Debt as “forgiven” and/or “discharged” and satisfy General
Accounting Office requirements.

UPON COMPLETION OF ABOVE COMMANDS, Grantor agrees and pledges Fidelity to His
Commercial Character with intent to never again dishonor the Creator or man by charging for
labor or delaying payment for debts; further, Grantor agrees, by this pledge,
to Indemnify and Hold Harmless all former Trustee(s), Handler(s), and Manager(s) for any/all
injuries and/or damages done to Grantor in the past; and Grantor pursues Harmony in commerce
that continuity may not be impeded; therefore, Grantor says:

I, John-Quincy: of the Jones Family, in this Affidavit and Declaration, instituted and
established after date of majority and re-affirmed on the first above mentioned date, being
competent to take control of my own financial affairs of estate and able to honor all claims, do
fully accept all charges and allegations placed to/against my account(s) and do declare under
penalty of perjury, without United States, to be a Statesman of the MissouriRepublic and a
Statesman of the Aniyvwiya (I suggest you use Cherokee) Nation, Category Four (4) [non-treaty]
Aboriginal North American Natives.

By Grantor,
Date/Seal
Under duress per minas, ephemeral and desultory codes, statutes, and regulations with protest
affirmed, without United States.

JURAT
State of ____________________ )
) ss
County of ___________________ )
Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ______________________, 20____,
by the above signatory, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person who appeared before me.

______________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ___________ (seal)

John-Quincy:
of the Jones Family/Clan - Progenitor
LIEN CREDITOR, LIEN CLAIMANT
c/o 123 West Columbus Street
Somewhere, Missery [12345]

"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life,
but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his
liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave
him a slave."
- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

***********************************************

SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS AND DIRECTIVES

This “Brief” is a Summary of Statements, Claims, and Directives attributed to the various Parties
effected by acts and actions, or the lack thereof, made particular to, and within, attached and
annexed Documents and Supporting Documents, summarized, to wit:
ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, Statement from “Public Debt: Private Asset,” published by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in January 1999, on page four (4) under “Debt as an Asset” it
states:
“The bank owes us the money that is in our account.

… for every debt incurred someone acquires a financial asset of equal value. Debt, then, is
considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the debtor.

In terms of the national debt, every dollar of the government’s debt is some-one’s
asset. Corporations, brokerage houses, bond-trading firms, foreign national, and U.S. citizens,
both here and abroad, are all willing to loan money to the U.S. government. They view the loan
as an investment, an asset that increases their wealth.” [Emphasis added for clarity, End of
quote]

ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, an act of “perfidy” is a deliberate breach of faith and a
calculated violation of trust; also, it is treachery and the act or an instance of treachery.

ACCEPTED: as fact and truth, "Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of
objection thereto." MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305. Therefore, by way
of “objection,” Grantor, herein and forever after, demands liquidation and complete transfer of
Grantor’s Assets held “In Trust” at/in the various Contra Asset, Inverse, Adverse, and/or other
accounts that are under the regulation and control of the Treasurer of the United States or the
Secretary of the Treasury and held in the name of JOHN QUINCY JONES (or, any derivatives
of said name) and any/all vessel(s) with numbered accounts that are derivative of Application for
Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate) and/or any/all social security program(s), as made
more specific in Main Document titled “CHARGING ORDER, WILL, and TESTAMENT,” be
immediately transferred into Grantor’s Trust Account located at/in FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF PHILADELPHIA, Legacy Treasury Direct (routing number) 0310-9999-6, Account
___________ in the form of Treasury Obligations, of Grantor’s choosing, that are NOT Federal
Reserve Notes. Grantor, herein, directs Treasurer to deduct any fees that may be applicable from
Grantors Estate and make entry on ledger of such deductions.

F.M. (famous mark) _______________________