The Kibosh "Treaty Remedy" - suggestion only

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
Locked 1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The Kibosh "Treaty Remedy" - suggestion only

iamsomedude
Administrator
posted Feb 25, 2016 by some_dude
Read Treaty of Ghent ... the first article is all you really need to read
listen to Audio from Dec 2, 2016
Read Lieber Code, Nuremberg Principles, FM 27-10 on surrender and POW, and FM 27-5 regarding the courts being under military contract ... all found under scans and other stuff section of iamsomedude.com


Authentication of Birth Record
DBA
Kurt's waiver of claim
Silver Bond (optional - for private attorney general)
for mortgages: TILA appendix H9 - H10: rescind contract

Mandatory Judicial Notice: Treaty of Ghent (8 stat 218), General Order 100, 22 Stat. 940; Treaty Series 377 (Red Cross Convention: 1864: Article 5), 32 Stat. 1803; Treaty Series 403 (CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND (HAGUE, II) (29 July 1899): Articles 43 and 55), and Nuremberg Principles under US Constitution Article VI Clause 2 (This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding) and United Nations Declaration of Human Rights along with the First Amendment right to freedom of religion with acceptance of oath of office

Question of jurisdiction: "What facts do you have there is some manner of contract that is controlling of which PROVES one knowingly, willingly and voluntarily after full disclosure signed on to something that bears the other party's signature as well?"

Question of constitutional authority: "What facts do you have there is something by or through your alleged constitution that compels My performance?"

Mandatory Counter-claim against actions taken = SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (17 stat 15: 42 U.S. Code ยง 1986): Jane Doe, civilian citizen operating by and thru NAME, coming in peace as a sick and wounded POW suffering injuries (22 Stat. 940; Treaty Series 377 (Red Cross Convention: 1864: Article 5)) at the hands of senior officers and agents using their positions of power and authority in the host nation for private profit and gain through forced commercial intercourse, pillage, and plunder resulting in the wanton destruction of private and public property without authority in violation of Article The First of the Treaty of Ghent 1814 (8 stat 218) and Articles 42, 44, 46, and 47 of the Lieber Code with dishonor of the Authenticated Indemnity Receipt issued by the Commanding Officer under Article 38 for surrender of the usufruct in violation of Trust (RE ############## of bond issued to county)

Relief Requested: As Jane Doe, civilian citizen, has been subject to indentured servitude and slavery since DOB and under Article 43 of the Lieber Code stands entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

[Last edited Feb 25, 2016]
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.

   



eric said Feb 26, 2016
Hi Boris!

Great to hear about the up coming show on talkshoe!!!

Soon I will be sharing what happened in court back on the 10th of Feb!(protecting property in divorce)

I've been loaded down lately with that case, plus with on going developments with my daughter's case, not to mention my efforts getting the surrender of the usufruct launched.

The question I have at present pertains to the Kurt WAIVER OF CLAIM.
If I'm understanding this correctly,the waiver serves as a 12 usc 95a notice at the county level. Not just an implied obligation, but one which is expressed, that clearly serves to inform the parties at hand of what is not only exchanged but that which is expected and DUE to that exchange.
Is this correct reasoning?

I ask because this could not be a signing of a mere release agreement absolving them from their part in the contract.

I hope I'm getting the angle of my view across effectively. It seems like a words as TERMS of ART, WAIVER OF CLAIM. Once again my understanding is that we are the Releasee of the waiver of claim by giving the usufruct expectancy; while they, the county is the Releasor of the waiver of claim under ratified obligations of law to not do xy&z against those that have surrendered; haven received the usufruct expectancy.


Once again I ask only to be clear...I've already all previous paperwork notarized & saw this WAIVER OF CLAIM, which I have not noticed before...

If I understand it correctly, it just neatly ties up what has already been implied & expressed in a portable package for local consumption/filing.

Eric
Eric Mittons




some_dude said Feb 26, 2016

Yea, he waiver is kinda new ... I put it in because it DOES Work and since you are operating under a DBA, I do believe it is important to demonstrate the intents and the WAIVER is more along the lines of First Amendment exercise of freedom of religion of which can not just be legislated away, unless you consent ... how else do you TRULLY explain the existence of Sharia Law here in America for the Muslims? Now if the people do not wish to operate in accordance with God's Law and with acceptance of his gift: the sacrifice of his only son for redemption of sin (debt), then they will suffer at the hands of the "last prophet" because that is their religion and to reject the gift is to reject the WORD OF GOD of which would be a violation of PUBLIC LAW and POLICY.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.