Reply – Re: What is a Republic?
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: What is a Republic?
— by iamsomedude iamsomedude
and up until now, the "private bankers" were the ones in control because they were the ones funding the Treasury; the people never delivered on the pledge to warrant the protections of the Declaration by the United States via ACCEPTANCE of what was done.

Pursuant to Lieber Code Article 134, a forced pledge was instituted and pursuant to Lieber Code Article 38, private property can only be taken by way of military necessity and even the, a indemnification receipt is issued to the "spoliated owner"; the fore runner of the Birth Certificate and Social Security Number, and basis for the foundation of "agreement that maximizes the benefit to both the occupier and the inhabitants" pursuant to Hague Article 43.  

If I comprehend this correctly, then according to the Law of Peace that has been circulating around recently, on page 35 (sec 2-4): International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations and on page 36 (sec 2-5): As noted, international jurisprudence is considered a part of U.S. law. The role it plays, however, is largely dependent on whether it is considered by courts to be in conflict with existing U.S. law or practice. In speaking to this point, Restatement, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the United States urges accommodation:

5 3. Effect of Violation of International Law . . . (3) If a domestic law of the United States may be interpreted either in a manner consistent with international law or in a manner that is in conflict with international law, a court in the United States will interpret it in a manner that is consistent with international law.

Comment:
J. Application of international law in courts in the United States. International law is applied by courts in the United States without the necessity (i) of pleading and proving it; or (i) of showing an affirmative acceptance by legislative or other national authority of the rule of international law applied. However, if there is domestic legislation contrary to international law that is also pertinent, courts in the United States will normally apply the legislation. But courts in the United States interpret general or ambiguous words in statutes in a manner consistent with international law as understood by them.


And it is also recognized that the Define and Punish Clause “authorizes Congress to derive from the often broadly phrased principles of international law a more precise code . . . necessary to bring the United States into compliance with rules governing the international community.” ~ Hamdan Brief.

THEREFORE, it appears:

The United States received loans from the "Private International Bankers" in exchange for "lien rights" against the "Estate in Expectancy" the united States of America was to receive from those of whom PLEDGE; only thing is, no one ever COMPLETED delivery (ie: RATIFIED The Declaration PLEDGE (SURRENDER)), therefore NO ONE ever received the PROTECTIONS of the Declaration (ie: Blessing of the Covenant) EXCEPT the "Private International Bankers" because their PLEDGE of IOU outweighs the PLEDGE of nothing, but the Article 43 AGREEMENT still stands in effect, and since those "Birth Records" are A DIRECT RESULT of the Social Security Act, both the USUFRUCT of the NAME and SSN stands PLEDGED, not to the Republic, but to the "Private International Bankers" thru the TREASURY, thus the "Private International Bankers" have subrogation rights over the "Defenses" of the TREASURY to "expand, defend, and protect the Kingdom" to INSURE their profits.

And in doing so, underwrites and ensures our SUBROGATION rights over BOTH the "Private International Bankers" and the TREASURY to "expand, defend, and protect the Kingdom" upon the ACCEPTANCE of what has been done via the FORCED PLEDGE of Lieber Code Article 134 and the RECEIPT issued pursuant to Lieber Article 38 in support and execution of Article 43 to RESTORE public order and safety and thus INSURE the general welfare and ENSURE the defense of the nation.

And in accordance with the Constitution, Congress can and does make courts inferior to the supreme court to ADMINISTRATE the Interests of the United States so acquired; the usufruct of "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people" held in Trust and its "Estate in Expectancy" mortgaged off to "pay the bills" and all those INDIVIDUALS out there using the "NAME" and "SSN" property interest are USUFRUCT of those interests until the "delivery (of the pledge) be evidenced in some way"
 because "ALL public monies, title, and movables have been sequestered" and "private property seized by way of military necessity" and all one has is a "receipt issued from which one may obtain indemnification" and the only way "both these governments (Corporate-Civil and Military) cease to exist" is when "loyal and republican form of governments are established" and the people have YET to do that, because ONLY the people can.


but the FIRST thing that must occur .. the people MUST be freed; Paramount to all other concerns.

So go make history ...





~ 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.