THE PATRIOT ACT IS RESTRICTED ONLY

TO A COMMERCIAL OFFER

Please note that virtually every page within the below PATRIOT ACT text have been omitted, meaning the act is non-existent to the general public, with the exception of where the said general public can be coerced to believe the act applies to them. (Fraud in the inducement) Attempting to argue the unconstitutionality of the act goes to traverse or joinder and causes the challenging individual to grant jurisdiction to argue or contest the act as inapplicable to be commercially transacted . . . which by the acts nature is perfectly legal and beyond a constitutional challenge to sell the act to any member of the public who accepts the offer by some offering “agent.”

WHEREAS:

THE PROMULGATED RULES AND REGS THAT COME WITHIN [PAIRS OF BRACKETS] PER THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE STYLE MANUAL, ARE OMITTED AND THEREBY, CAUSE THE PRIVATE COPYRIGHT STATUTE TO POSSESS NO FORCE OR EFFECT OF LAW TO BE UNILATERALLY ENFORCED UPON THE SERVED PARTY.

Note also, where displayed, the first pairs of brackets within pairs of brackets denotes the Act as derive from the legislative body of the de facto corporate united state inc., i.e. District of Columbia doing business in the nature of a law merchant selling the statute.

[107th Congress Public Law 56]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ056.107]
[[Page 271]] Omitted!

UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS

REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT ACT) ACT OF 2001
[[Page 115 STAT. 272]] Omitted!

Public Law 107-56 107th Congress

An Act
To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 26, 2001 – [H.R. 3162]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America <<NOTE: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.>> in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short <<NOTE: 18 USC 1 note.>> Title.–This Act may be cited as the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001”.

(b) Table of Contents.–The table of contents for this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Construction; severability.
TITLE I–ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM
Sec. 101. Counterterrorism fund.
Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans.
Sec. 103. Increased funding for the technical support center at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.
Sec. 105. Expansion of National Electronic Crime Task Force Initiative.
Sec. 106. Presidential authority.
TITLE II–ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic
communications relating to terrorism.
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic
communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.
Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information.
Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications.
Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power.
Sec. 208. Designation of judges.
Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.
Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.
Sec. 211. Clarification of scope.
Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.
Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.
Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.
Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.

[[Page 115 STAT. 273]] Omitted!

Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.
Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.
Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.
Sec. 221. Trade sanctions.
Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.
Sec. 224. Sunset.
Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap.

TITLE III–INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING ABATEMENT AND ANTI-TERRORIST

FINANCING ACT OF 2001
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 303. 4-year congressional review; expedited consideration.
Subtitle A–International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures
Sec. 311. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, or international transactions of primary money laundering concern.
Sec. 312. Special due diligence for correspondent accounts and privatebanking accounts.
Sec. 313. Prohibition on United States correspondent accounts with
foreign shell banks.
Sec. 314. Cooperative efforts to deter money laundering.
Sec. 315. Inclusion of foreign corruption offenses as money launderingcrimes.
Sec. 316. Anti-terrorist forfeiture protection.
Sec. 317. Long-arm jurisdiction over foreign money launderers.
Sec. 318. Laundering money through a foreign bank.
Sec. 319. Forfeiture of funds in United States interbank accounts.
Sec. 320. Proceeds of foreign crimes.
Sec. 321. Financial institutions specified in subchapter II of chapter53 of title 31, United States code.
Sec. 322. Corporation represented by a fugitive.
Sec. 323. Enforcement of foreign judgments.
Sec. 324. Report and recommendation.
Sec. 325. Concentration accounts at financial institutions.
Sec. 326. Verification of identification.
Sec. 327. Consideration of anti-money laundering record.
Sec. 328. International cooperation on identification of originators ofwire transfers.
Sec. 329. Criminal penalties.
Sec. 330. International cooperation in investigations of money
laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terroristgroups.
Subtitle B–Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements
Sec. 351. Amendments relating to reporting of suspicious activities.
Sec. 352. Anti-money laundering programs.
Sec. 353. Penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders andcertain recordkeeping requirements, and lengthening effective
period of geographic targeting orders.
Sec. 354. Anti-money laundering strategy.
Sec. 355. Authorization to include suspicions of illegal activity inwritten employment references.
Sec. 356. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers anddealers; investment company study.
Sec. 357. Special report on administration of bank secrecy provisions.
Sec. 358. Bank secrecy provisions and activities of United States
intelligence agencies to fight international terrorism.
Sec. 359. Reporting of suspicious activities by underground banking
systems.
Sec. 360. Use of authority of United States Executive Directors.
Sec. 361. Financial crimes enforcement network.
Sec. 362. Establishment of highly secure network.
Sec. 363. Increase in civil and criminal penalties for money laundering.
Sec. 364. Uniform protection authority for Federal Reserve facilities.
Sec. 365. Reports relating to coins and currency received in
nonfinancial trade or business.
Sec. 366. Efficient use of currency transaction report system.
Subtitle C–Currency Crimes and Protection
Sec. 371. Bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States.
Sec. 372. Forfeiture in currency reporting cases.

[[Page 115 STAT. 274]] Omitted!

Sec. 373. Illegal money transmitting businesses.
Sec. 374. Counterfeiting domestic currency and obligations.
Sec. 375. Counterfeiting foreign currency and obligations.
Sec. 376. Laundering the proceeds of terrorism.
Sec. 377. Extraterritorial jurisdiction.

TITLE IV–PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A–Protecting the Northern Border
Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.
Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.
Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain
identifying information in the criminal history records of
visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United
States.
Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.
Subtitle B–Enhanced Immigration Provisions
Sec. 411. Definitions relating to terrorism.
Sec. 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus;
judicial review.
Sec. 413. Multilateral cooperation against terrorists.
Sec. 414. Visa integrity and security.
Sec. 415. Participation of Office of Homeland Security on Entry-ExitTask Force.
Sec. 416. Foreign student monitoring program.
Sec. 417. Machine readable passports
Sec. 418. Prevention of consulate shopping.

Subtitle C–Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of
Terrorism
Sec. 421. Special immigrant status.
Sec. 422. Extension of filing or reentry deadlines.
Sec. 423. Humanitarian relief for certain surviving spouses and
children.
Sec. 424. “Age-out” protection for children.
Sec. 425. Temporary administrative relief.
Sec. 426. Evidence of death, disability, or loss of employment.
Sec. 427. No benefits to terrorists or family members of terrorists.
Sec. 428. Definitions.

TITLE V–REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM
Sec. 501. Attorney General’s authority to pay rewards to combat
terrorism.
Sec. 502. Secretary of State’s authority to pay rewards.
Sec. 503. DNA identification of terrorists and other violent offenders.
Sec. 504. Coordination with law enforcement.
Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities.
Sec. 506. Extension of Secret Service jurisdiction.
Sec. 507. Disclosure of educational records.
Sec. 508. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys.

TITLE VI–PROVIDING FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

Subtitle A–Aid to Families of Public Safety Officers

Sec. 611. Expedited payment for public safety officers involved in theprevention, investigation, rescue, or recovery effortsrelated to a terrorist attack.
Sec. 612. Technical correction with respect to expedited payments forheroic public safety officers.
Sec. 613. Public safety officers benefit program payment increase.
Sec. 614. Office of Justice programs.
Subtitle B–Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984
Sec. 621. Crime victims fund.
Sec. 622. Crime victim compensation.
Sec. 623. Crime victim assistance.
Sec. 624. Victims of terrorism.

TITLE VII–INCREASED INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTUREPROTECTION

Sec. 701. Expansion of regional information sharing system to facilitate Federal-State-local law enforcement response related toterrorist attacks.

[[Page 115 STAT. 275]] Omitted!

TITLE VIII–STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM

Sec. 801. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems.
Sec. 802. Definition of domestic terrorism.
Sec. 803. Prohibition against harboring terrorists.
Sec. 804. Jurisdiction over crimes committed at U.S. facilities abroad.
Sec. 805. Material support for terrorism.
Sec. 806. Assets of terrorist organizations.
Sec. 807. Technical clarification relating to provision of material support to terrorism.
Sec. 808. Definition of Federal crime of terrorism.
Sec. 809. No statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.
Sec. 810. Alternate maximum penalties for terrorism offenses.
Sec. 811. Penalties for terrorist conspiracies.
Sec. 812. Post-release supervision of terrorists.
Sec. 813. Inclusion of acts of terrorism as racketeering activity.
Sec. 814. Deterrence and prevention of cyberterrorism.
Sec. 815. Additional defense to civil actions relating to preserving records in response to Government requests.
Sec. 816. Development and support of cybersecurity forensic
capabilities.
Sec. 817. Expansion of the biological weapons statute.

TITLE IX–IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE

Sec. 901. Responsibilities of Director of Central Intelligence regarding foreign intelligence collected under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Sec. 902. Inclusion of international terrorist activities within scopeof foreign intelligence under National Security Act of 1947.
Sec. 903. Sense of Congress on the establishment and maintenance of
intelligence relationships to acquire information on
terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Sec. 904. Temporary authority to defer submittal to Congress of reportson intelligence and intelligence-related matters.
Sec. 905. Disclosure to Director of Central Intelligence of foreign
intelligence-related information with respect to criminal
investigations.
Sec. 906. Foreign terrorist asset tracking center.
Sec. 907. National Virtual Translation Center.
Sec. 908. Training of government officials regarding identification and use of foreign intelligence.

TITLE X–MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 1001. Review of the department of justice.
Sec. 1002. Sense of congress.
Sec. 1003. Definition of “electronic surveillance”.
Sec. 1004. Venue in money laundering cases.
Sec. 1005. First responders assistance act.
Sec. 1006. Inadmissibility of aliens engaged in money laundering.
Sec. 1007. Authorization of funds for dea police training in south and central asia.
Sec. 1008. Feasibility study on use of biometric identifier scanning system with access to the fbi integrated automated
fingerprint identification system at overseas consular posts
and points of entry to the United States.
Sec. 1009. Study of access.
Sec. 1010. Temporary authority to contract with local and State
governments for performance of security functions at United
States military installations.
Sec. 1011. Crimes against charitable americans.
Sec. 1012. Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.
Sec. 1013. Expressing the sense of the senate concerning the provisionof funding for bioterrorism preparedness and response.
Sec. 1014. Grant program for State and local domestic preparedness
support.
Sec. 1015. Expansion and reauthorization of the crime identificationtechnology act for antiterrorism grants to States and
localities.
Sec. 1016. Critical infrastructures protection.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 18 USC 1 note.>> CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or unenforceable by itsterms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construedso as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless suchholding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in whichevent such provision shall be deemed

[[Page 115 STAT. 276]] omitted

severable from this Act and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly
situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.

TITLE I–ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM

SEC. 101. <<NOTE: 28 USC 524 note.>> COUNTERTERRORISM FUND.
(a) Establishment; Availability.–There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States a separate fund to be known as the “Counterterrorism Fund”, amounts in which shall remain available without fiscal year limitation–
(1) to reimburse any Department of Justice component for any
costs incurred in connection with–
(A) reestablishing the operational capability of an
office or facility that has been damaged or destroyed as
the result of any domestic or international terrorism
incident;
(B) providing support to counter, investigate, or
prosecute domestic or international terrorism,
including, without limitation, paying rewards in
connection with these activities; and
(C) conducting terrorism threat assessments of
Federal agencies and their facilities; and
(2) to reimburse any department or agency of the Federal
Government for any costs incurred in connection with detaining
in foreign countries individuals accused of acts of terrorism
that violate the laws of the United States.
(b) No Effect on Prior Appropriations.–Subsection (a) shall not be
construed to affect the amount or availability of any appropriation to the Counterterrorism Fund made before the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ARAB AND MUSLIM AMERICANS.

(a) Findings.–Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from
South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to
nothing less than the full rights of every American.
(2) The acts of violence that have been taken against Arab
and Muslim Americans since the September 11, 2001, attacks
against the United States should be and are condemned by all
Americans who value freedom.
(3) The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing
is sacrosanct in American society, and applies equally to all
religious, racial, and ethnic groups.
(4) When American citizens commit acts of violence against
those who are, or are perceived to be, of Arab or Muslim
descent, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
(5) Muslim Americans have become so fearful of harassment
that many Muslim women are changing the way they dress to avoid
becoming targets.
(6) Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted
heroically during the attacks on the United States, including
Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani
descent, who is believed to have gone
[[Page 115 STAT. 277]]

to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now
missing.
(b) Sense of Congress.–It is the sense of Congress that–
(1) the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans,
including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from
South Asia, must be protected, and that every effort must be
taken to preserve their safety;
(2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any
Americans be condemned; and
(3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism of
fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious
backgrounds.

SEC. 103. INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER AT THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated for the Technical Support
Center established in section 811 of the Antiterrorism and EffectiveDeath Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132) to help meet the demandsfor activities to combat terrorism and support and enhance the technicalsupport and tactical operations of the FBI, $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

SEC. 104. REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO ENFORCE PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES.

Section 2332e of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking “2332c” and inserting “2332a”; and
(2) by striking “chemical”.

SEC. 105. <<NOTE: 18 USC 3056 note.>> EXPANSION OF NATIONAL ELECTRONICCRIME TASK FORCE INITIATIVE.

The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take
appropriate actions to develop a national network of electronic crimetask forces, based on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting,and investigating various forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against critical infrastructure and financial payment systems.

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1702) is amended–
(1) in subsection (a)(1)–
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that
subparagraph), by striking “; and” and inserting a
comma and the following:“by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;”;
(B) in subparagraph (B)–
(i) by inserting “, block during the pendency
of an investigation” after “investigate”; and
(ii) by striking “interest;” and inserting
“interest by any person, or with respect to any
property, subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States; and”;
(C) by striking “by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States`; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:

[[Page 115 STAT. 278]]

“(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country orforeign nationals, confiscate any property, subject tothe jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreignperson, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the UnitedStates;and all right, title, and interest in any property soconfiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the termsdirected by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held,used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of theUnited States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.”; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
“(c) Classified Information.–In any judicial review of a
determination made under this section, if the determination was based onclassified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the ClassifiedInformation Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to thereviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not conferor imply any right to judicial review.”.

TITLE II–ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by
section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph
(r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by
section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208;
110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
“(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical
weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or”.

SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE
OFFENSES.
Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking “and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),” and inserting
“section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),”.

SEC. 203. <<NOTE: 18 USC app.>> AUTHORITY TO SHARE CRIMINALINVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION.
(a) Authority To Share Grand Jury Information.

[[Page 115 STAT. 279]]

(1) In general.–Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure is amended to read as follows:
“(C)(i) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this
rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also
be made–
“(I) when so directed by a court
preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial
proceeding;
“(II) when permitted by a court at the
request of the defendant, upon a showing that
grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the
indictment because of matters occurring before the
grand jury;
“(III) when the disclosure is made by an
attorney for the government to another Federal
grand jury;
“(IV) when permitted by a court at the
request of an attorney for the government, upon a
showing that such matters may disclose a violation
of State criminal law, to an appropriate official
of a State or subdivision of a State for the
purpose of enforcing such law; or
“(V) when the matters involve foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in
section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information
(as defined in clause (iv) of this subparagraph),
to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence,
protective, immigration, national defense, or
national security official in order to assist the
official receiving that information in the
performance of his official duties.
“(ii) If the court orders disclosure of matters
occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be
made in such manner, at such time, and under such
conditions as the court may direct.
“(iii) Any Federal official to whom information is
disclosed pursuant to clause (i)(V) of this subparagraph
may use that information only as necessary in the
conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any
limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such
information. Within a reasonable time after such
disclosure, an attorney for the government shall file
under seal a notice with the court stating the fact that
such information was disclosed and the departments,
agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.
“(iv) In clause (i)(V) of this subparagraph, the
term `foreign intelligence information’ means–
“(I) information, whether or not concerning a
United States person, that relates to the ability
of the United States to protect against–
“(aa) actual or potential attack or
other grave hostile acts of a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power;
“(bb) sabotage or international
terrorism by a foreign power or an agent
of a foreign power; or
“(cc) clandestine intelligence
activities by an intelligence service or
network of a foreign power or by an
agent of foreign power; or
[[Page 115 STAT. 280]]
“(II) information, whether or not concerning
a United States person, with respect to a foreign
power or foreign territory that relates to-“(aa) the national defense or the
security of the United States; oR“(bb) the conduct of the foreign
affairs of the United States.”.
(2) Conforming amendment.–Rule 6(e)(3)(D) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by striking
“(e)(3)(C)(i)” and inserting “(e)(3)(C)(i)(I)”.
(b) Authority To Share Electronic, Wire, and Oral Interception
Information.–
(1) Law enforcement.–Section 2517 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
“(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence orcounterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National SecurityAct of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (asdefined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist theofficial who is to receive that information in the performance of hisofficial duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuantto this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations onthe unauthorized disclosure of such information.”.
(2) Definition.–Section 2510 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by–
(A) in paragraph (17), by striking “and” after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and
inserting “; and”; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
“(19) `foreign intelligence information’ means–
“(A) information, whether or not concerning a
United States person, that relates to the ability of the
United States to protect against–
“(i) actual or potential attack or other
grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent
of a foreign power;
“(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by
a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
“(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by
an intelligence service or network of a foreign
power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
“(B) information, whether or not concerning a
United States person, with respect to a foreign power or
foreign territory that relates to–
“(i) the national defense or the security of
the United States; or
“(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of
the United States.”.
(c) Procedures.–The <<NOTE: 18 USC 2517 note.>> Attorney Generalshall establish procedures for the disclosure of information pursuant to
section 2517(6)

[[Page 115 STAT. 281]]

and Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedurethat identifies a United States person, as defined in section 101 of theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801)).
(d) Foreign <<NOTE: 50 USC 403-5d.>> Intelligence Information.–
(1) In general.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
it shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or foreign intelligence
information obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be
disclosed to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence,
protective, immigration, national defense, or national security
official in order to assist the official receiving that
information in the performance of his official duties. Any
Federal official who receives information pursuant to this
provision may use that information only as necessary in the
conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any
limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.
(2) Definition.–In this subsection, the term “foreign
intelligence information” means–
(A) information, whether or not concerning a United
States person, that relates to the ability of the United
States to protect against–
(i) actual or potential attack or other grave
hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power;
(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by
an intelligence service or network of a foreign
power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(B) information, whether or not concerning a United
States person, with respect to a foreign power or
foreign territory that relates to–
(i) the national defense or the security of
the United States; or
(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the
United States.

SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF INTELLIGENCE EXCEPTIONS FROM LIMITATIONS ON INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONICCOMMUNICATIONS.
Section 2511(2)(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking “this chapter or chapter 121” and
inserting “this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title”;
and
(2) by striking “wire and oral” and inserting “wire,
oral, and electronic”.

SEC. 205. <<NOTE: 28 USC 532 note.>> EMPLOYMENT OF TRANSLATORS BY THEFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
(a) Authority.–The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
is authorized to expedite the employment of personnel as translators tosupport counterterrorism investigations and operations without regard to applicable Federal personnel requirements and limitations.
(b) Security Requirements.–The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall establish such security requirements as are
necessary for the personnel employed as translators under subsection
(a).

[[Page 115 STAT. 282]]

(c) Report.–The Attorney General shall report to the Committees on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on–
(1) the number of translators employed by the FBI and other
components of the Department of Justice;
(2) any legal or practical impediments to using translators
employed by other Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full,
part-time, or shared basis; and
(3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services
in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those
needs.

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting “, or in
circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target ofthe application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of aspecified person, such other persons,” after “specified person”.

SEC. 207. DURATION OF FISA SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS WHO ARE AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER.
(a) Duration.–
(1) Surveillance.–Section 105(e)(1) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(e)(1)) is
amended by–
(A) inserting “(A)” after “except that”; and
(B) inserting before the period the following: “,
and (B) an order under this Act for a surveillance
targeted against an agent of a foreign power, as defined
in section 101(b)(1)(A) may be for the period specified
in the application or for 120 days, whichever is less”.
(2)Physical Search.–Section 304(d)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(1)) is amended by–
(A) striking “forty-five” and inserting “90”;
(B) inserting “(A)” after “except that”; and
(C) inserting before the period the following: “, and (B)
an order under this section for a physical search targeted
against an agent of a foreign power as defined in section
101(b)(1)(A) may be for the period specified in the application
or for 120 days, whichever is less”.
(b) Extension.–
(1) In general.–Section 105(d)(2) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(d)(2)) is
amended by–
(A) inserting “(A)” after “except that”; and
(B) inserting before the period the following: “,
and (B) an extension of an order under this Act for a
surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign
power as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A) may be for a
period not to exceed 1 year”.
(2) Defined term.–Section 304(d)(2) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(2) is
amended by inserting after “not a United States person,” the
following: “or against an agent of a foreign power as defined
in section 101(b)(1)(A),”.

[[Page 115 STAT. 283]]

SEC. 208. DESIGNATION OF JUDGES.
Section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) is amended by–
(1) striking “seven district court judges” and inserting
“11 district court judges”; and
(2) inserting “of whom no fewer than 3 shall reside within
20 miles of the District of Columbia” after “circuits”.

SEC. 209. SEIZURE OF VOICE-MAIL MESSAGES PURSUANT TO WARRANTS.
Title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in section 2510–
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking beginning with
“and such” and all that follows through
“communication”; and
(B) in paragraph (14), by inserting “wire or”
after “transmission of”; and
(2) in subsections (a) and (b) of section 2703–
(A) by striking “Contents of electronic” and
inserting “Contents of wire or electronic” each place
it appears;
(B) by striking “contents of an electronic” and
inserting “contents of a wire or electronic” each
place it appears; and
(C) by striking “any electronic” and inserting
“any wire or electronic” each place it appears.

SEC. 210. SCOPE OF SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as redesignated
by section 212, is amended–
(1) by striking “entity the name, address, local and long
distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or
other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a
subscriber” and inserting the following: “entity the–
“(A) name;
“(B) address;
“(C) local and long distance telephone connection records,
or records of session times and durations;
“(D) length of service (including start date) and types of
service utilized;
“(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber
number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network
address; and
“(F) means and source of payment for such service
(including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber”; and
(2) by striking “and the types of services the subscriber
or customer utilized,”.

SEC. 211. CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE.

Section 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 551) is
amended–
(1) in subsection (c)(2)–
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking “or”;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at
the end and inserting “; or”; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:

[[Page 115 STAT. 284]]

“(D) to a government entity as authorized under chapters
119, 121, or 206 of title 18, United States Code, except that
such disclosure shall not include records revealing cable
subscriber selection of video programming from a cable
operator.”; and
(2) in subsection (h), by striking “A governmental entity”
and inserting “Except as provided in subsection (c)(2)(D), a
governmental entity”.

SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.
(a) Disclosure of Contents.–
(1) In general.–Section 2702 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended–
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting
the following:
“Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or
records”;
(B) in subsection (a)–
(i) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking “and”
at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the
period and inserting “; and”; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the
following:
“(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic
communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge
a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or
customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any
governmental entity.”;
(C) in subsection (b), by striking “Exceptions.–A
person or entity” and inserting “Exceptions for
disclosure of communications.– A provider described in
subsection (a)”;
(D) in subsection (b)(6)–
(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking
“or”;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the
period and inserting “; or”; and
(iii) by adding after subparagraph (B) the
following:
“(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an
emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious
physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the
information without delay.”; and
(E) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
“(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.–A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other informationpertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not includingthe contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))–
“(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
“(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
“(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service;
[[Page 115 STAT. 285]]
“(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death
or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of
the information; or
“(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.”.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.–The table of
sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2702 and
inserting the following:
“2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.”.
(b) Requirements for Government Access.–
(1) In general.–Section 2703 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended–
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting
the following:
“Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or
records”;
(B) in subsection (c) by redesignating paragraph (2)
as paragraph (3);
(C) in subsection (c)(1)–
(i) by striking “(A) Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), a provider of electronic
communication service or remote computing service
may” and inserting “A governmental entity may
require a provider of electronic communication
service or remote computing service to”;
(ii) by striking “covered by subsection (a)
or (b) of this section) to any person other than a
governmental entity.
“(B) A provider of electronic communication service
or remote computing service shall disclose a record or
other information pertaining to a subscriber to or
customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this
section) to a governmental entity” and inserting “)”;
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as
paragraph (2);
(iv) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii),
(iii), and (iv) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C),
and (D), respectively;
(v) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) by
striking the period and inserting “; or”; and
(vi) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as
redesignated) the following:
“(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).”; and
(D) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated) by striking
“subparagraph (B)” and insert “paragraph (1)”.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.–The table of
sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2703 and
inserting the following:
“2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records.”.

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

[[Page 115 STAT. 286]]

(1) by inserting “(a) In General.–” before “In
addition”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(b) Delay.–With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court
order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if–
“(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that
providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant
may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
“(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible
property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in
section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121,
any stored wire or electronic information, except where the
court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
“(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.”.

SEC. 214. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY UNDER FISA.

(a) Applications and Orders.–Section 402 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1842) is amended–
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking “for any
investigation to gather foreign intelligence information or
information concerning international terrorism” and inserting
“for any investigation to obtain foreign intelligence
information not concerning a United States person or to protect
against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such investigation of a United States
person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution”;
(2) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
“(2) a certification by the applicant that the information
likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not
concerning a United States person or is relevant to an ongoing
investigation to protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such
investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to
the Constitution.”;
(3) by striking subsection (c)(3); and
(4) by amending subsection (d)(2)(A) to read as follows:
“(A) shall specify–
“(i) the identity, if known, of the person
who is the subject of the investigation;
“(ii) the identity, if known, of the person
to whom is leased or in whose name is listed the
telephone line or other facility to which the pen
register or trap and trace device is to be
attached or applied;
“(iii) the attributes of the communications
to which the order applies, such as the number or
other identifier, and, if known, the location of
the telephone line or other facility to which the
pen register or trap and trace device is to be
attached or applied and,
[[Page 115 STAT. 287]]
in the case of a trap and trace device, the
geographic limits of the trap and trace order.”.
(b) Authorization During Emergencies.–Section 403 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1843) is amended–
(1) in subsection (a), by striking “foreign intelligence
information or information concerning international terrorism”
and inserting “foreign intelligence information not concerning
a United States person or information to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,
provided that such investigation of a United States person is
not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by
the first amendment to the Constitution”; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking “foreign intelligence
information or information concerning international terrorism”
and inserting “foreign intelligence information not concerning
a United States person or information to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,
provided that such investigation of a United States person is
not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by
the first amendment to the Constitution”.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:
“SEC. 501. <<NOTE: 50 USC 1861.>> ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
“(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a
designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiringthe production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers,documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted
solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
“(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall–
“(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney
General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
“(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon
the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
“(b) Each application under this section–
“(1) shall be made to–
“(A) a judge of the court established by section
103(a); or
“(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter
43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly
designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to
have the power to hear applications and grant orders for
the production of tangible things under this section on
behalf of a judge of that court; and
[[Page 115 STAT. 288]]
“(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought
for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with
subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not
concerning a United States person or to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
“(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified,
approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applicationmeets the requirements of this section.
“(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is
issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
“(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than thosepersons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section)that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangiblethings under this section.
“(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under anorder pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute awaiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

“SEC. 502. <<NOTE: 50 USC 1862.>> CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

“(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully informthe Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House ofRepresentatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senateconcerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.
“(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month
period–
“(1) the total number of applications made for orders
approving requests for the production of tangible things under
section 402; and
“(2) the total number of such orders either granted,
modified, or denied.”.

SEC. 216. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.
(a) General Limitations.–Section 3121(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by inserting “or trap and trace device” after “pen
register”;
(2) by inserting “, routing, addressing,” after
“dialing”; and
(3) by striking “call processing” and inserting “the
processing and transmitting of wire or electronic communications
so as not to include the contents of any wire or electronic
communications”.
(b) Issuance of Orders.–
(1) In general.–Section 3123(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
“(a) In General.–
“(1) Attorney for the government.–Upon an application made
under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte
order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or
trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the
court finds that the attorney for the Government
[[Page 115 STAT. 289]]
has certified to the court that the information likely to be
obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing
criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order,
shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic
communication service in the United States whose assistance may
facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is
served on any person or entity not specifically named in the
order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for
the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that
is serving the order shall provide written or electronic
certification that the order applies to the person or entity
being served.
“(2) State investigative or law enforcement officer.–Upon
an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall
enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of
a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction
of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement
or investigative officer has certified to the court that the
information likely to be obtained by such installation and use
is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
“(3)(A) Where the law enforcement agency implementing an ex
parte order under this subsection seeks to do so by installing
and using its own pen register or trap and trace device on a
packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic
communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure
that a record will be maintained which will identify–
“(i) any officer or officers who installed the
device and any officer or officers who accessed the
device to obtain information from the network;
“(ii) the date and time the device was installed,
the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the
date, time, and duration of each time the device is
accessed to obtain information;
“(iii) the configuration of the device at the time
of its installation and any subsequent modification
thereof; and
“(iv) any information which has been collected by
the device.
To the extent that the pen register or trap and trace device can
be set automatically to record this information electronically,
the record shall be maintained electronically throughout the
installation and use of such device.
“(B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be
provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the
ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the
device within 30 days after termination of the order (including
any extensions thereof).”.
(2) Contents of order.–Section 3123(b)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended–
(A) in subparagraph (A)–
(i) by inserting “or other facility” after
“telephone line”; and
(ii) by inserting before the semicolon at the
end “or applied”; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
[[Page 115 STAT. 290]]
“(C) the attributes of the communications to which
the order applies, including the number or other
identifier and, if known, the location of the telephone
line or other facility to which the pen register or trap
and trace device is to be attached or applied, and, in
the case of an order authorizing installation and use of
a trap and trace device under subsection (a)(2), the
geographic limits of the order; and”.
(3) Nondisclosure requirements.–Section 3123(d)(2) of title
18, United States Code, is amended–
(A) by inserting “or other facility” after “the
line”; and
(B) by striking “, or who has been ordered by the
court” and inserting “or applied, or who is obligated
by the order”.
(c) Definitions.–
(1) Court of competent jurisdiction.–Section 3127(2) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
“(A) any district court of the United States
(including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any
United States court of appeals having jurisdiction over
the offense being investigated; or”.
(2) Pen register.–Section 3127(3) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended–
(A) by striking “electronic or other impulses” and
all that follows through “is attached” and inserting
“dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information
transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a
wire or electronic communication is transmitted,
provided, however, that such information shall not
include the contents of any communication”; and
(B) by inserting “or process” after “device”
each place it appears.
(3) Trap and trace device.–Section 3127(4) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended–
(A) by striking “of an instrument” and all that
follows through the semicolon and inserting “or other
dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information
reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or
electronic communication, provided, however, that such
information shall not include the contents of any
communication;”; and
(B) by inserting “or process” after “a device”.
(4) Conforming amendment.–Section 3127(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended–
(A) by striking “and”; and
(B) by inserting “, and `contents’ ” after
“electronic communication service”.
(5) Technical amendment.–Section 3124(d) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking “the terms of”.
(6) Conforming amendment.–Section 3124(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting “or other
facility” after “the appropriate line”.

SEC. 217. INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER COMMUNICATIONS.

Chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
[[Page 115 STAT. 291]]
(1) in section 2510–
(A) in paragraph (18), by striking “and” at the
end;
(B) in paragraph (19), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (19) the following:
“(20) `protected computer’ has the meaning set forth in
section 1030; and
“(21) `computer trespasser’–
“(A) means a person who accesses a protected
computer without authorization and thus has no
reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication
transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer;
and
“(B) does not include a person known by the owner
or operator of the protected computer to have an
existing contractual relationship with the owner or
operator of the protected computer for access to all or
part of the protected computer.”; and
(2) in section 2511(2), by inserting at the end the
following:
“(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person
acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic
communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or fromthe protected computer, if–
“(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer
authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s
communications on the protected computer;
“(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully
engage in an investigation;
“(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable
grounds to believe that the contents of the computer
trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the
investigation; and
“(IV) such interception does not acquire communications
other than those transmitted to or from the computer
trespasser.”.

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C.
1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking “the purpose”and inserting “a significant purpose”.

SEC. 219. <<NOTE: 18 USC app.>> SINGLE-JURISDICTION SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TERRORISM.

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by
inserting after “executed” the following: “and (3) in an
investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as
defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code), by a Federalmagistrate judge in any district in which activities related to the
terrorism may have occurred, for a search of property or for a personwithin or outside the district”

SEC. 220. NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE.

(a) In General.–Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended–
(1) in section 2703, by striking “under the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure” every place it appears and inserting
“using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of
[[Page 115 STAT. 292]]

THE POLICE POWERS ARE SUBJECT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Clearly established. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Davis v. Scherer, No. 03-3259 (6th Cir. 07/22/2005) (In a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the grant of summary judgment to defendant-police officers is reversed where their seizure of plaintiff’s person and entry into his home were unsupported by a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.);Cf. Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
 457 U.S. 800. Pp. 190-197 (1982); See also: Williams v. Taylor,
 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000); Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Cf. Existence or nonexistence; Mandatory v. Discretional; Most favorable; Qualified immunity;

Cummings v. City of Akron,  No. 03-3259 (6th Cir. 07/22/2005) (In a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the grant of summary judgment to defendant-police officers is reversed where their seizure of plaintiff’s person and entry into his home were unsupported by a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.);

Taylor v. Maddox, No. 02-55560 (9th Cir. 05/10/2004) (Principles of comity and federalism counsel against substituting our judgment for that of the state courts, a deference that is embodied in the requirements of the federal habeas statute, as amended by AEDPA. When it comes to state-court factual findings, AEDPA has two separate provisions. First, section 2254(d)(2) authorizes federal courts to grant habeas relief in cases where the state-court decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Or, to put it conversely, a federal court may not second-guess a state court’s fact-finding process unless, after review of the state-court record, it determines that the state court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable. Cf. Lockyer v. Andrade,  538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003) (“The ‘unreasonable application’ clause requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable.”); see also Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (same standard of unreasonableness applies under subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)). Second, section 2254(e)(1) provides that “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,” and that this presumption of correctness may be rebutted only by “clear and convincing evidence.”);

Lee v. Gregory,No. 02-57132 (9th Cir. 04/07/2004) (Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). The qualified immunity inquiry involves two sequential questions. First: “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Second: “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step, is to ask whether the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.” Id.);

Ceballos v. Garcetti,No. 02-55418 (9th Cir. 03/22/2004) (For purposes of summary judgment, qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that plaintiff’s speech, alleging wrongdoing by a deputy sheriff, addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed his employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption.);

 Sanders v. Lamarque,No. 02-56893 (9th Cir. 02/03/2004) (Under § 2254(d)(1)’s “unreasonable application” clause, then, a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.’ Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1175 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000)).

Beier v. City of Lewiston,No. 02-35516 (9th Cir. 01/14/2004) (” ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614-15 (1999) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton,  483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). “This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer,  536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The “salient question” is whether the state of the law in June of 1997 gave the officers fair warning that their actions were unconstitutional. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 741; see also Devereaux v. Abbey,  263 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[W]hat is required is that government officials have ‘fair and clear warning’ that their conduct is unlawful.”) (citation omitted).);

Riley v. Payne,No. 03-35054 (9th Cir. 12/23/2003) (Riley’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). AEDPA’s constrained review permits a federal court to grant habeas relief affecting a state prisoner only when a state court’s ruling: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A state court’s decision is “contrary to” federal law if it: (1) “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law” set forth in Supreme Court case authority, or (2) applies controlling law to a set of facts that is “materially indistinguishable” from a Supreme Court decision but nevertheless reaches a different result. Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003). A state court’s decision is an “unreasonable application” of federal law only if it is “objectively unreasonable,” which “requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous.” Id. at 1174.);

 Shaw v. Terhune, No. 02-16829 (9th Cir. 12/22/2003) (Shaw’s petition for habeas corpus is governed by the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under AEDPA, we may only grant Shaw’s petition if the state court’s rejection of his due process claim was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court;” or (2) an unreasonable interpretation of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Van Tran v. Lindsay,  212 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Lockyer v. Andrade,  538 U.S. 63 (2003) (“[W]e may not, of course, reverse a state court’s decision simply because it is inconsistent with a rule established by a Ninth Circuit case.”). The phrase “clearly established federal law” refers to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000);

Van Lynn v. Farmon, No. 03-15221 (9th Cir. 10/17/2003) (We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Sept. 8, 2003) (No. 03-372). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), we review the state court’s decision to determine whether the state court’s adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court case law or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Here, there is no contention that the state-court decision resulted in an unreasonable determination of the facts. Thus, we consider whether the state-court decision resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court case law. “Contrary to” and “unreasonable application of” have “distinct meanings” as used in § 2254(d)(1). Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067; see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000). A decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court case law “if it fails to apply the correct controlling authority, or if it applies the controlling authority to a case involving facts materially indistinguishable from those in a controlling case, but nonetheless reaches a different result.” Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067. A state-court decision is also “contrary to” Supreme Court case law if the state court ” ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in’ ” Supreme Court cases. Early v. Packer,  537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 405). In contrast, “[a] state court’s decision involves an unreasonable application of federal law if ‘the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle . . . but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.’ ” Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413).

Powell v. Galaza, No. 01-15195 (9th Cir. 05/06/2003) (First, a state court decision is “contrary to our clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.” Williams v. Taylor,  supra, at 405-406; see also Bell v. Cone, supra, at 694. Lockyer v. Andrade,  ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000));

U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, No. 00-151 (U.S.S.C. 05/14/2001) (As an initial matter, the Cooperative is correct that, when district courts are properly acting as courts of equity, they have discretion unless a statute clearly provides otherwise. For “several hundred years,” courts of equity have enjoyed “sound discretion” to consider the “necessities of the public interest” when fashioning injunctive relief. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329-330 (1944). See also id., at 329 (“The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it”); Weinberger v. Romera-Barcelo,  456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982) (“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction”). Such discretion is displaced only by a “clear and valid legislative command.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co, 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946). See also Romero-Barcelo, supra, at 313 (“Of course, Congress may intervene and guide or control the exercise of the courts’ discretion, but we do not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles”).

Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386 (1989) (All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 392-399. [490 U.S. 386, 387]);

Harlow v. Fitzgerald ,457 U.S. 800. Pp. 190-197 (1982) (Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily [457 U.S. 800, 819] should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors.);

Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (05/24/1999) aff’d. Saucier v. Katz,  533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001) (Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of the search. “Clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. His very action need not previously have been held unlawful, but in the light of pre-existing law its unlawfulness must be apparent. E.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987);

Henry v. County of Shasta, No. 95-16704, D.C. No. CV-93-02038-GEB (9th Cir. 03/02/1998) (A municipal defendant may only be held liable under S 1983 if the unlawful actions of its employees or agents were taken pursuant to that defendant’s policies or customs, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), including a policy of being deliberately indifferent to the rights of its inhabitants, City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989).);

Baptiste v. J.C.Penney Co.,147 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); Cf. Smith v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, No. 00-6046 (D.C. No. 99-CV-615) (W.D. Okla. 2000); Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board,  No. 00-16649 (9th Cir. 02/04/2002)

Gray v. Klauser, No. 00-35732 (9th Cir. 02/27/2002) (Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus for a claim adjudicated in a adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The Supreme Court has held that the clauses “contrary to” and “unreasonable application of” have independent meaning. Penry v. Johnson , 121 S.Ct. 1910, 1918 (2001); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000); see Packer v. Hill, 291 F.3d 569, 1101 (9th Cir. 2002). The “contrary to” clause applies, inter alia, when a state “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth” in the Supreme Court’s cases; the “unreasonable application of” clause applies when a state identifies the correct legal standard but applies it unreasonably. Penry, 121 S.Ct. at 1918 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 404). Because the Idaho state courts did not apply the pertinent constitutional rules established by the Supreme Court, discussed below, they applied an incorrect legal standard. Thus, the “contrary to” clause governs in this case, and the only questions remaining are (1) whether there was constitutional error; and (2) “whether the error had a substantial or injurious effect on the verdict.” Packer, 277 F.3d at 1102 (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637(1993).

Harris v. Carter,  No. 02-3114 (6th Cir. 07/29/2003) (The parties do not dispute the reasonableness of the facts determined in the state court proceedings. Thus, to be entitled to relief under § 2254(d), this Court must find that the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals was either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedents. Price v. Vincent,123 S.Ct. 1848, 1852-53 (2003). A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor,

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413. The Supreme Court has cautioned that a “federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411.);

Robinson v. Solano County, No. 99-15225 (9th Cir. 02/04/2002) (A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider, then, this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right? . . . In the course of determining whether a constitutional right was violated on the premises alleged, a court might find it necessary to set forth principles which will become the basis for a holding that a right is clearly established. This is the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case, and it is one reason for our insisting upon turning to the existence or nonexistence of a constitutional right as the first inquiry. The law might be deprived of this explanation were a court simply to skip ahead to the question of whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case. Katz, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.);

Stevens v. Rose, No. 00-15840 (9th Cir. 08/02/2002) (This appeal relates solely to Hanson’s qualified immunity defense with respect to the alleged Fourth Amendment violation. Establishing qualified immunity requires that the official’s conduct be objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The Supreme Court recently encapsulated this objective approach into a two-step test. The threshold question that the court must answer is whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right[.]” Saucier v. Katz,  533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If this initial question is answered affirmatively, the court must address whether “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 202 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton,  483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987));

Chein v. Shumsky, No. 01-56320 (9th Cir. 03/14/2003) (We have recently interpreted Bronston to preclude a perjury conviction if the allegedly perjurious answer is in response to a question that is “excessively vague or fundamentally ambiguous.” United States v. Culliton , 300 F.3d 1139, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Chia v. Cambra , 281 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that Ninth Circuit case law may be persuasive authority for determining what Supreme Court precedent is clearly established). In contrast, “[i]f we determine that the questions were only arguably ambiguous or not ambiguous at all,” the perjury determination must be made by the jury. Culliton, 300 F.3d at 1141 (internal quotation marks omitted).);

Cf. ORCP 47(C); [Or Laws 1995, ch. 618, § 5]; Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 420,939 P2d 608 (1997); Turnbow v. K.E. Enterprises, Inc., 155 Or App 59, 65, 962 P2d 764 (1998); McCulloch v. Price Waterhouse LLP, 157 Or App 237, 252, 971 P2d 414 (1998), rev den 328 Or 365 (1999); Kraemer v. Harding, Et alii, 329 Or 47, 985 P2d 788 (1999); Vandermay v. Paul D. Clayton, CC 92-2104; CA A91235; SC S44717 (Or. 06/11/1999); Richardson v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 161 Or App 615, 984 P2d 917, rev den 329 Or 553 (1999); Glen Slate v. Saxon, Marquoit, Bertoni & Todd, 9609-06865; CA A99631 (Or. 03/08/2000); Nike v. Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co., C96-0209CV; CA A97847 (Or. 03/22/2000); Swenson v. Legacy Health System, 169 Or App 546, 9 P3d 145 (2000); Kluge v. Oregon State Bar, 172 Or App 452, 19 P3d 938 (2001); Glenn K. Jackson, Inc. v. Roe, No 00-15614 (9th Cir. 12/11/2001); Moore v. California Inst. of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab, No. 00-55958 (9th Cir. 01/04/2002); Little v. Windermere Relocation Inc.,  No. 99-35668 (9th Cir. 01/23/2002)

 UNITED STATES, THE COLLAGE OF CORPORATIONS

WE DO NOT HAVE A ‘REPUBLIC’ OR THE ‘CONSTITUTION’ OF THE ‘REPUBLIC’

WE ARE SIMPLY PRESUMED TO EXERCISE THE FRANCHISE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THEREBY, BE ‘GOVERNED, TAXED, AND DO BUSINESS WITH AN ENORMOUS CORPORATION THAT REFERENCES ITSELF AS THE USA

See the following recorded facts:

THE REPUBLIC WAS APPARENTLY COOPTED BY A COUP　MANY YEARS AGO　AND IS　BEING RUN AS A “FOR PROFIT”　DICTATORSHIP BY THE LIKES OF THE MICROSOFTS, IBMS, WAL-MARTS, ETC ONLY IT IS CALLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (CORPORATION) – HOW ABOUT WAGING ‘MIXEDWAR’ ON THE PEOPLE AND RUNNING DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION AND HUMAN TRAFFICING AND MIND CONTROL AND TAKING OVER ALL THE FORMER ‘GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES, THE MILITARY, THE POLICE, THE NATIONAL GUARD, ETC. AND MAKING THEM ALL IN TO ONE HUGE CORPORATION OWNED AND OPERATED AS A GENOCIDE MACHINE!

See below:

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million US and foreign companies.　　That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B).　　Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free.　If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee. But since this article is about “funny” stuff and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find.　　You might be surprised.

For example, if you enter “Government of the United States ” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.　 The first “company” on the list is:　　 “Government of the United States (US Government) HQ　 “the u.s. Capitol Washington DC “　　The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

When you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th　Circuit United States Courthouse”.

None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the fact that “this Government” is a “for profit corporation”).　　But the report begins to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States ” where we read:　 “government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington ,dc”.　　　Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the　owner　of the “Government Of The United States” is an　archbishop　named Deric R. McCloud?　 . . . the “Government of the United States ” owned　by an archbishop?　　Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet understood the following:

“The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)” ; and “The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)” ; and “The Popes laws are [presumed] to be obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844) (Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44)”

And just in case you would think we can’t be referencing　the　”Government of the United States Inc. ,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read: “all recipients [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by barack obama administration.”　 The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States ” that we all so ignorantly love and admire.　　And bear in mind that this “Government” and all its various “branches” and “Departments” are being reported by D&B to be individual,　private　for profit companies.
Go back to the top of the “Government of the United States ” page and click the “More Info” tab.　　　Under “Employees (Estimated)” you’ll note the number to be: “2,768,886 at this location　 “3″. Whereas, 2.7 million federal employees sounds about right.　　This enormous number of employees confirms that we’re viewing information on　the　”Government of the United States ” but if only “3″ of those millions of employees are “At this location” (the “HQ”), who are the “chosen 3″?　　And where, precisely, IS “this location”?　　Capitol Hill?　　But where?　　In the Senate chamber?　　The House of Representatives?　　Some cloak room?　

Under “State of Incorporation ” you’ll read “Information not found”.　　This could easily indicate that this “Government” was never formally “incorporated” and acts as headquarters of a massive privateering operation under letters of Marque and reprisal . . . just like the Pirates of Old.　　Or it might mean that the information concerning that incorporation is intentionally concealed. However, we can see a clue to the possible date of incorporation for this “Government of the United States ” under the heading “Years in Business” which reads “223″.　　If the “Government of the United States ” began 223 years ago, there should be a constitution or charter to mark its creation at that time.　 This is A.D. 2010, so “223″ years ago would be A.D. 1787.　　 But that’s odd. Why?　　Because our current “Government of the United States ” should have been　created　by “The Constitution of the United States ” and therefore　could not have existed　prior to the　ratification　of the Constitution.　

 It should follow, in A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention completed the final draft of the Constitution on September 17th.　　That proposed Constitution for a new “federal government” was then submitted to the Congress that already existed under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in A.D. 1781).　　The Confederation Congress quickly “approved” the proposed Constitution under　Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation　and then sent it out to We the People for ratification. Article VII of the Constitution declares, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”　　I.e., the Constitution (and resulting federal government) could not become effective and operational until it was ratified by at least　nine　of the States of the Union .　 Thus, while the Constitution may have been “approved” by the existing Congress in A.D.　1787, it could　not　have been established and ordained by We the People until ratified by at least 9 States.　　The 9th　State ( New Hampshire ) did not ratify until June 21st, A.D.　1788.

Wikipedia article “Unites States Constitution” reports:”Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire ‘s ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the new Constitution, and on March 4,　1789, the [new, federal] government　began operations.”　

Since the Constitution was suppose to have created our modern federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before 1788 (when the 9th　State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States ” began “223″ years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true.　　　Similarly, given that the new “Government” created by the Constitution was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken, however, 　.” The People” does not include you and me. ( Barron v. City of Baltimore  32 U.S. 243) . . . might the framers have been the “We the people” referenced? All but a few of the framers being Masons and possibly proceeding with a much larger purpose in the not so distant future.

In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com reports that suggest “this government” is some form of conglomerate of “companies”, “branches” and departments. When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States ” report two years ago, Manta.com had a different website format.　　In that earlier format, Manta.com reported that “Government of the United States ” started in “1787″.　 In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year (and probably two) before the Constitution itself was ratified and the resulting federal government became operational.　　 I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com website might have been changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created under the original Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788, so I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com website pages for safekeeping.　

As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.

For example, where Manta used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223″ years.　　That’s not big change.　　It’s still possible that the numbers “223″ and “1787″ simply reflect some persistent data entry　calculation　error but, given the differences between “1787″ and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced.　　It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States ” is correct when noting that the government of the United States was instituted the year　before　the Constitution was ratified by “those” People. If so, as strange as it sounds, it is therefore conceivable that there　might　well be two editions of our “Constitution”:　　1) one　approved　by the Confederation Congress in A.D. 1787; and 2) another,　ratified　by We “those”　People　in A.D. 1788.　　The text of both of these “editions” of the Constitution would be identical, but the underlying　authority　would be completely different.

Under the Constitution ratified by the　People in A.D. 1788, the enacting authority and national sovereigns are We the　People.　　Under the　possible　Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would be the　Congress.　　If Congress were the constitutional sovereign, which it isn’t according to: Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 467, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884) (Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the power can be correctly said to appertain to sovereignty in any proper sense, as an attribute of an independent political community. The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to discharge debt in place of money of account, may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.

　Whereas, the Constitution was bequeathed to us, as the posterity in the Preamble.　 The Preamble is not just an announcement.　 Webster’s 1828 defines Preamble:　

1.　　　 Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.

2.　　　 The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.

At this time, nothing could be passed on to an heir without falling under one of the two statutes listed below;

 A　Quote from the Statute of Wills, [St. 34 & 35 Hen.　 Vll (1542-1543) Ch.5]　 “Persons…shall have full and free liberty, power and authority to give, dispose, will or devise to any person or persons (Except bodies politick [1] and corporate) by his last will and testament in writing, or otherwise by any act or acts lawful executed in his life”

Hereditaments could only be passed to a body politic, “we the people” and the peoples’ “posterity,” by way of Trust, as shown in: The Statute of Uses [St 27 Hen, vlll (1536) Ch.10] ”…that where any person or persons stand or be seised, or at any time hereafter shall happen to be seised of… etc., or other hereditaments, to the use, confidence or trust of any other person or persons, or body politic.”….

The Constitution cannot be a will, as you can see by the aforementioned statutes, as it passed hereditaments to a body politic.　 The bodies politic are “we the people” and the peoples’ “posterity.”　 Webster’s 1828 defines hereditaments as:

“Any species of property that may be inherited: lands, tenements, anything corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal or mixed, that may descend to an heir.　 Blackstone

 A corporeal hereditament is visible and tangible; an incorporeal hereditament is an ideal right, existing in contemplation of law, issuing out of substantial corporeal property.”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[2] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble describes an estate held in trust.　 Don’t we say that our elected officials hold an office of Public Trust?　 That’s because the Constitution of the United States created a trust.

Trust is defined by Webster’s 1828 in three sets of definitions.　 In the first set under number 12, “trust” is defined as:

 ”In law, an estate, devised or granted in confidence that the devisee or grantee shall convey it, or dispose of the profits, at the will of another; an estate held for the　 use of another.”

Webester’s 1828 defines “estate” in 6 as: “The general business or interest of gov’ts; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.　 But in this sense, we now use state.”

The Requisites of an Express Trust.　

 1.　It must have a competent Settlor and a Trustee. (We the People)

 2.   It must have an ascertainable trust res. [3] (Blessings of Liberty)

3.　 It must show sufficiently certain beneficiaries.　 (ourselves and our posterity)

 4.　A trust comes into being only upon execution of an intention (or by operation of law and out of necessity due to a constructive FRAUD denial of the people to secure property to themselves due to the manipulation of the right to money of account) and thereby create said trust by or for the party(s) having legal and equitable control of the subject matter of the trust.

Our Forefathers were competent Settlers and had equitable control of the subject matter as the representatives of the People.　 The trustees and their duties are defined and established within the Articles of the Constitution.　 The Preamble and Constitution ascertain the trust res being passed on in the phrase, “the Blessings of Liberty.”　 The Preamble and the Constitution show sufficient certain beneficiaries in the phrase, “to ourselves and our posterity.”

The Preamble state an intention for which the document was created as:　 “in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessing of Liberty.”

Does it show an intention to manifest?　 Absolutely.　 “To ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”　

“An express trust, as they sometimes are called, are “direct” trusts, and are those trust intentionally created by the direct and positive act of the settlor, by some writing, deed, or will, or oral declaration.”
Amer. Juris. 2d. Vol 76, §15

Our Forefather were highly educated and knew about Trusts, Hereditaments, Conveyances, Fraud, Wills and Uses.　 Their knowledge was implemented in drafting the Constitution, because of the Statute of Frauds.

“[St. 29 Chas. ll (1676) Ch. lll] 1. For prevention of many fraudulent practices, …6. And moreover, no devise in writing of or hereditaments…shall…be revocable, otherwise than by some other will or codicil in writing, (Form 1040 by definition is a Codicil) or other writing declaring the same… (2) but all devises and bequest of lands and tenements shall remain and continue in force, until the same be burned, cancelled, torn or obliterated by the testator, or his directions, in manner aforesaid, or unless the same be altered by some other will or codicil in writing, or writing of the devisor, signed in the presence of three or four witnesses, declaring the same; any former law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Just for emphasis, this underlined phrase shows that any will or trust created under any former law does not apply here.

The Statute Against Collusive and Fraudulent Conveyances prohibited any underhanded intent behind a conveyance of hereditaments.

“[St. 27 Eliz l (1585) Ch. 4] “the Queens most excellent Majesty…(etc.) and Bodies Politick,… may have, incur and receive great loss and prejudice by reason of fraudulent conveyances, (and etc.) (by way of) …(3) secret intent of the parties the same to be to their own proper use, and at their free disposition, (4) coloured nevertheless by fained countenance and shew of words and sentences, as though the same were made bona fide, ..” “said former conveyance, …Shall be deemed, taken and adjudged to be void, frustrate, and of none effect, by virtue and force of this present act.“

The “Bill of Rights” was not included in the Constitution (1787), because it also created an Independent Trust Res and was added four years later in 1791. It was annexed to the Constitution by way of codicil, as the amended intentions or afterthought of our Forefathers.　 When our Forefathers died, it became “Their Will.”　 Webster’s 1828 defines “codicil” as: “A writing by way of supplement to a will.”

Webster’s 1828 defines “will” in two sets of definitions.　 In the first set, under number 1 and 8 “will” is defined as:

 1.　 “That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action: the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.　　 The will is directed or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.　 In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable.　 These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual, part of man.　 Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will.　

8.　 Testament; the disposition of a man’s estate, to take effect after his death.　 Wills are written, or nuncupative, that is, verbal.”

Under Art.V of the Constitution are the procedures for any additional amendments to be added to the original Constitutional Trust.　

The “Bill of Rights”　was the amended intentions of our Forefathers to place further restrictive clauses and limitations upon the gov’t.　 These were added four years later, which would be necessary to show that a trust had already been created.　

It’s clear our Forefather drafted the Constitution with the intention of creating a trust.　 This Union of States created an Estate, a Republic-In-Form of Government, held in trust, to be passed on to the posterity.　 The Constitution is our legacy and　we are the beneficiaries.　 It was bequeathed to us, as the posterity,　in the Preamble.

The Constitution created a fourteenth government, which is just as foreign to the thirteen original states, as they are foreign to each other.　 This 14th government was set up under Roman Civil Law, as　an international entity.　 It had to be set up this way in order to deal with the rest of the world commercially.　 The entire world is being regulated under Roman Civil Law by　the international banksters, and with the changing of words and phrases aka terms of art, America has been duped into accepting this same form of international treatment. (We are not taxpayers, we are “treated” as taxpayers!)
We hold from God the gift which includes all others.　 This gift is the natural right to our independent life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.　 But life cannot maintain itself alone.　 The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting that gift.
In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties.　 And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources.　 By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them.　 This process is necessary in order that life may prosper and run its appointed course.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made law.　 On the contrary, it was the fact the life, liberty, and property existed beforehand those caused men to make laws in the first place.　

Yes, this conjecture sounds like another howling conspiracy theory but, even so, since the Constitution wasn’t ratified until 1788 and the resulting government didn’t become operational until 1789, D&B’s report that the government began “223″ years ago and/or began in “1787″ can’t be accurate.　　It seems odd that an entity as professional a D&B would make such a peculiar error.　　 It’s also curious that D&B describes the

“Government of the United States” as a　company, the “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.　

If you’re up for even more interesting issues, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com search engine.　　You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies

1) “United States House of Representatives　(Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; a

2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi　(Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC addres

Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read: “United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco , CA . .

Apparently the US House of Representative is “a private company“?!　　And it’s “located in　San Francisco, CA　” (the home of the Speaker of the House)”

Looking under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:　“United States House Of Representatives also　does business as　Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”　 The House of Representatives not only “does business” but

does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”?　　Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the House of Representatives?　　Is she the CEO or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?

The 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as　Nancy Pelosi”.　Also traded as?!

　　What does　that　mean?　　Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government trading cards featuring the House of Reps and Nancy Pelosi?　　Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of　stock?　　If so, who’s buying?　　Who’s selling?

•　　Enter “US Social Security Admin” into the search engine.　　Scroll down a bit and you’ll read, “US Social Security Admin is a for profit private company categorized under Federal Government-Social and Human Resources and located in West Branch, MI.”　 So Social Security is a “private company” that’s not located in Washington DC , but rather in “West Branch, MI”?　　

•　　Try “Internal Revenue Service”.　　Manta.com will produce “41,632 matching

U.S. companies”.　　Some of these are clearly private entities that have no governmental pretense, but many or most are “governmental”.　 If you click on the link to “Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue District Council,” you’ll read, “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Portland , OR .”

Click the “Internal Revenue Service, Andover Service Center . . . . Andover MA ” link and you’ll read that “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Andover , MA .”

Two different locations indicate two different “private companies”.

These reports (and scores more) suggest that each individual IRS office may be a separate “private company”.　　Therefore, if you’re contacted by an IRS office in Austin , Texas , you may be dealing with one “private company”.　　If you’re subsequently contacted by another IRS office from, say, Provo , Utah —you might be dealing with a completely different “private company”.　　What’s your obligation to talk to several different “private companies” about your income taxes?　　Are there privacy concerns in sharing your tax information with several private companies?　 And given that there are at least several score (and perhaps several thousand) “private companies,” operating as the IRS, who are you paying your income taxes to?　　H&R Block?

•　　There are a host of additional “private companies” that you might want to research.　　I collected website pages for about two dozen in 2008 and 2009.　　I’m not sure how many you’ll still find today, but if you can find ‘em and if you read closely, you may be fascinated:　　“United States Court of Appeals,” “District of Columbia,” “George W Bush,” and “Supreme Court of the United States”.　　All were listed by D&B as “private companies”.

You may be able to find other D&B reports that are similarly fascinating or bewildering.　　What does D&B have to say about the CIA or Homeland Security?　　Inquiring minds wanna know.

•　　What’s it all mean?　　I’m not sure.　　Perhaps D&B is merely guilty of gross negligence when it comes to entering data on governmental entities.　 Or, maybe the entire structure of what currently passes for “government” is actually a conglomerate of “private DE FACTO companies”.　　If so, the true nature of the “Government of the United States ” might not be that of a “republic” or even a “democracy,” but rather a combination of governmental and corporate interests (“private companies”) that’s usually described as “fascism”.　　If so, we no longer have “government of the People, by the People and for the People” but instead have “government of the subjects, by the Congress, and for the Corporations.”

SO . . . IF ALL OF GOVERNMENT IS A CONSTRUCT OF PRIVATE COPYRIGHT REGISTERED COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS, BY WHAT RULE OF LAW DO THESE FICTITIOUS ENTITES CAUSE INVOLUNTARY INTERACTION BY THE PEOPLE TO DO BUSINESS WITH THESE “CREATURES”? MIGHT IT BE WHOLLY VOLUNTARY BUT RELIES ON “LEGISLATIVE TERMS OF ART” GOING TO FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT!

Maxim of　law of like kind –
Paper to Paper Flesh to Flesh

GOVERNMENT AND ARTIFICIAL PERSON . . . CAN INTERFACE ONLY WITH OTHER ARTIFICAL PERSONS / ENTITIES

Penhallow v. Doan’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54, 1 L.Ed 507 (02/25/1795) (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.);

THE D.C. FRANCHISE INCOME TAX DECEPTION

You’re Not a ‘Citizen’ Under the Internal Revenue Code. This is because the nexus to being “treated” as a subject to the Income Tax lies in the exercise of registering for the “elective” privilege offered by the District of Columbia, which said privilege is known as the “Elective” Franchise” providing the opportunity to “Vote” for federal office holders who in turn, craft federal legislation that provides for federal handouts to said franchised taxpayers domiciled within the several states. Application for such handouts, summarily moves those who are not registered to vote into the taxable jurisdiction of said franchise.

When reading Title 10 of the District of Columbia Regulations Chapter 65 of the “Economic Incentive Development Zones” which by its nature is a massive federal welfare program going to the various franchise participants and the several states, and thereby, dovetails with the Buck Act that overlies the said several states and referenced as “this state” which is defined as being “within the airspace above “the state” that has legislative jurisdiction. Cites AUTHORITY: Unless otherwise noted, the authority for this chapter is section 13 of the Economic Development Zone Incentives Amendment Act of 1988, D.C. Code Section 5-1406 (1993 Supp.), Mayors Order 90-161 (October 31, 1999) SOURCE: Final Rulemaking published at 40 DCR 8626 (December 17, 1993)

Throughout the above cited D.C. Title is noted: at Section 6502.2 The District of Columbia Franchise Tax Act of 1947 D.C. Code Section 47-1807.5. When registered with the District of Columbia Franchise as a “Voter” you have “Elected” to be “TREATED” as a “Taxpayer” who participates and thereby exercises the fiction known as “this state” for jurisdictional and other purposes. Below is where the above gets interesting as regards the residents of the District of Columbia. Keep in mind, you can’t be a resident of the District of Columbia unless you physically relocate to the District of Columbia. The jurisdictional issue of residency does in fact attach to your constructive trust name (in all upper case letters) which is the entity that is tagged as being treated as a taxpayer . . . and thereby, a resident (fiction within the said District of Columbia . . . that being said, would you say as said resident is identified within the below legislation as no longer being an entity subject to the income tax while being a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia? To wit:

111th CONGRESS　

1st Session　

H. R. 1014　

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in the same manner as bona fide residents of possessions of the United States (Inc.)

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE　

February 12, 2009　

Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LAMBORN, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. HARPER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
　

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in the same manner as bona fide residents of possessions of the United States Inc.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘No Taxation Without Representation Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The phrase ‘no taxation without representation’ was a rallying cry of many American colonists during the period of British rule in the 1760s and early 1770s. The slogan gained widespread notoriety after the passage of the Sugar Act on April 5, 1764.
(2) American colonists increasingly resented being levied taxes without having actual legislators seated and voting in Parliament in London. The idea that there should be no taxation without representation dated back even further. Benjamin Franklin stated, ‘it is suppos’d an undoubted Right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own Consent given thro’ their Representatives.’
(3) This issue became even more defined in 1765 with the passage of the Stamp Act which was the first true attempt to levy a direct tax on the American colonies. Ultimately the tax was repealed, but the idea of no taxation without representation persisted.
(4) Article I, section 2, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, states, ‘The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.’.
(5) The Organic Act of 1801 placed Washington, DC, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress and people in the District were no longer considered residents of Virginia or Maryland.
(6) Many in Washington, DC, were immediately opposed to the idea of being taxed without congressional representation and over the years several congressional leaders introduced constitutional amendments to give the District of Columbia voting representation, though none were successful.
(7) In 1898, Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States and currently has a Resident Commissioner with limited voting rights. Section 933 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 exempts bona fide citizens who are residents of Puerto Rico for the entire taxable year from Federal taxes on income earned in Puerto Rico.
(8) On March 31, 1917, the United States took possession of the Virgin Islands and in 1927, the territory’s residents were granted citizenship. Under section 932 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, individuals who are bona fide residents of the United States Virgin Islands during the entire taxable year, and who fully pay all income tax liabilities to the United States Virgin Islands, are not subject to Federal income taxes on their income.
(9) Guam was established as a territory of the United States after the passage of the Guam Organic Act of 1950. Under the provisions of section 935 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, residents of Guam are required to file tax returns with Guam, but not with the United States Federal Government and therefore the residents do not have to pay United States Federal income taxes.
(10) The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was established in 1975 after residents decided not to pursue independence, but instead they opted to enter into territory negotiations. The tax treatment of the Northern Mariana Islands is similar to the structure of Guam in that bona fide residents are not required to pay Federal income taxes.
(11) American Samoa, which is technically considered ‘unorganized’ because no Organic Acts have been passed by Congress, is governed by section 931 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Under this section, bona fide year-round residents are exempt from Federal taxes on income they earn in Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands, but are subject to Federal taxes on income earned elsewhere.
1(12) In keeping with the early history and democratic traditions of the United States, the principles established in the Constitution, and in conformance with the other territories of the United States which have delegates but no Representative, the residents of the District of Columbia should be exempt from paying United States Federal income taxes. (And that would include the fictitious entity named and used to send offers to pay a Federal income tax to you at a Federally crafted address under the ZIP Code scam.
SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(a) In General- Subpart D of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘SEC. 938. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
‘(a) General Rule- In the case of an individual who is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia during the entire taxable year, gross income shall not include–
‘(1) income derived from sources within the District of Columbia, and
‘(2) income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business by such individual within the District of Columbia.
‘(b) Deductions, etc. Allocable to Excluded Amounts Not Allowable- An individual shall not be allowed–
‘(1) as a deduction from gross income any deductions (other than the deduction under section 151, relating to personal exemptions), or
‘(2) any credit, properly allocable or chargeable againstamounts excluded from gross income under this section.
‘(c) Bona Fide Resident and Other Applicable Rules- For purposes of this section, rules similar to the rules of section 876, 937, 957(c), 3401(a)(8)(D), and 7654 shall apply.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpartD of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘Sec. 938. Income from sources within the District of Columbia.’. (The “Buck Act” would appear to apply in this case as a jurisdictional nexus tying the several states and all Federal fictions to the District of Columbia and remember they are taxing the “Fiction” they are not taxing you in the “Flesh”!.)
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Whereas, no man or woman can be a Citizen, National or state Citizen either.　　 Those titles are all reserved for the legal entity/person.

Maxim of　law of like kind – paper to paper, flesh to flesh – not paper to flesh.
Since the U.S. is a corporation, as stated in their own codes (USC), how can someone be a Citizen of a corporation?
Surely it is an impossibility.　　 People will say, no, the U.S. is a country…but that is the　united States of America and that is NOT how it reads on any form, application or document.　　People need to understand just who they are and who they are supposedly “voting” for.　　 It is the President /CEO of the U.S. corporation. 28 USC 3002 (15) A
for example:　
City of　&　County of　Los Angeles, State of California — all corporations (check their charters for proof) what makes one think the United States is not?
Do you recall this line　below　in the movie, “The Interpreter”?　　(starring Nicole Kidman & Sean Penn).　Well, the truth is often revealed in movies, just people don’t　see　or　hear it for what it’s sharing.　 A great example of an allegory movie was “Wizard of Oz” – read this link:http://freedom-school.com/the_wizard_of_oz.pdf　

“Despite all the flags on First Avenue, there are no nations any more, only companies – international companies. lt’s where we are. lt’s what we are”.　– Kuman-Kuman to Sylvia Broome in the movie “The Interpreter” in reference to the United Nations on First Avenue at 46th St.　in New York.　…　incidentally, the tagline for the film: 　The truth needs no translation.

Now for some information about the NAME.　 Conversion goes　much deeper than the monetary issue, as it is EVERYTHING the banksters　do.　　 Conversion means altering its nature.　 Thus from a living being to a corporate entity…..from man/woman to a PERSON.　 Conversion using admiralty / maritime laws so all is in (the tight little “box”) of commerce.　　　Conversion from　Patrick Bellringer　(living　man) to　PATRICK BELLRINGER　(legal entity).　　　

Bellringer　is　actually 　just the family name, but is used along with the birth date to capture jurisdiction if One does not know　that you’re　being asked to “volunteer” as an indentured　”bond servant” person　to the corporate system/scheme.　　

Some attorneys say this “strawman” issue is nonsense, yet I hold my form and merely state facts.　　 It all relates　in　the conversion to　the fictitious term of art known as the “PERSON.” You can’t become a “Person” but you will be “Presumed” to “Animate” and thereby “join” with the fiction for jurisdictional purposes.　

Just take a look at the state issued driver license, passport, any and all commercial　invoices, bills, plane tickets, etc.,　 all name the　legal　entity.

　 People ignorantly sign forms that　declare they are a “U.S. Person”. The U.S. is a corporation, not a country by definition.　Americans are enslaved by　ignorance as well as their arrogance.

Common usage of　the　word “person”　is　–　a “human being” –　 However, legal codes/statutes define it this way:　”Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm, or other legal entity.　 That nails it right there….or other legal entity.　　So then　a “person” is a legal entity, NOT a living breathing　biological man or a woman.　　Use of the word “individual” confuses people, but it is simply a legal entity disguised as a man or woman.　 How may　a man or woman be considered the same as a corporation or any other legal entity?　 Can’t happen.　 Impossible.　“person” is a word of the Private Civil Law, and a “man” is a word of nature.

This one word　”PERSON”　is the crux of control over the people.　　 If you consider yourself a person or U.S.　Citizen/person or sign any paperwork that states that you are such, you are voluntarily accepting that role/status　and control apparatus.　　You are then considered　in their jurisdiction.　　　　

 Natural person　vs. artificial person, is just like a green apple vs. red　apple,　go back to the NOUN and drop the adjectives — still a person, and still an apple.　　 So forget the STRAWMAN issue, because that is the PERSON.　　　A　man/woman　shouldn’t even be in those private tribunal commercial /prize courts.　 Notice the word “man” or “woman” which are the creations of God and will not be found anywhere within those legislatively crafted copyrighted statutes either.　

 True liberty will come once people understand this　and stop volunteering!　　Spread the word　or remain as an indentured servant to the system.

 “The nature of true freedom doesn’t come from a piece of paper, right or privilege, rather it’s the understanding of “standing” as a sovereign man or woman. “

“To the Constitution of the United States the term sovereign is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution…They might have announced themselves ‘sovereign’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration” – Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440,455

The people that live in what was known as the united States of America, fail to realize that they are not living in freedom, if they are under double/triple taxation. Licenses are considered privileges and the law of the land is no longer recognized by the men/women who are supposedly governing.

Much of what has been sold as “truth” in govt. and religions are lies, because it is all about control. People have given away their power. For example, people came to America supposedly to get away from the control of the King of England and become sovereigns. That power was taken away again by the deceptive founders through their so called CONstitution which is a controlling document and among other acts. There is not anyone alive today that is a party to that document and that is why　the Bush Admin laughs/mocks it. People also accept the label of persons　(legal entity), and willingly accept benefits/privileges which is not what a sovereign would do. A sovereign controls his/her own functionality and takes full responsibility for his/her actions. That by the way, is what Common Law is all about. But America is NOT under common law! But we do continue to have access to the Natural Right of Men, which is paramount over any terms of art or fictional creations.

By the way, why is it in the Constitution, the words People and Posterity are capitalized?

A capitonym is a word that changes its meaning (and sometimes pronunciation) when it is capitalized, and usually applies to capitalization due to proper nouns or eponyms

PREAMBLE to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Now the question to ask, were you signatory to that declaration (Constitution) and most importantly, if you think that you are “covered” under being one of “We the People”, – guess again, because when they capitalized it, the meaning of the word was changed to reflect a particular group of “people”, and the Prosperity was for those future generations to theirs, not yours

Hard core facts — most of Americans live the life of a bond servant (see any social security card and the CUSIP bond tracking numbers on the back and permits the corporation to trade on your accout, while at the same time, accessing your tax exemption for tax avoidance!). This red number identifies the indentured servants to the Corporation which is running the show/the game/the illusion and they have tricked most people into thinking they are “free”, yet they are absolutely not ! The country is under Admiralty Law, of maritime commerce and a law that is recognized as adversarial as well. Time to pull the curtain and reveal the Wizard of Oz?

I suspect the above if addressed on point, may well acknowledge that the Congress has offered remedy from the Federal Income Tax to those who have their head together . . . said Federal Tax also known as “The District of Columbia Franchised Income Tax Act.”

AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERSTANDING re THE ADMINISTRATIVE/

LEGISLATIVE “PRIZE” COURT MUST AFFIRMATIVLY PROVE JURISDICTION

WHEN RIGHTS ARE RESERVED at UCC 1-308, ARTICLE III STATE COURT MUST DETERMINE CAUSE PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH CAUSE / JURISDICTION

“It is well settled in administrative law that: “It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency…” 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762. And;

Apparent agency.

Kotera v. Daioh Int’l U.S.A. Corp,9509-06556; A100452 (Or. 01/30/2002) (In the absence of agency based on actual authority, plaintiff (FRANCHISE TAX BOARD) was required to produce evidence of apparent agency to support personal jurisdiction over (Defendant). Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or App 274, 282, 945 P2d 1107 (1997). To establish apparent agency, plaintiff must have offered evidence that (1)　Defendants held out Plaintiff as an agent, and (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on that holding out. See id. at 282-83. Plaintiff alleged neither such “holding out” by Defendants nor reliance on plaintiff’s part. The only evidence of “holding out” came from the affidavit submitted by Defendants, which acknowledged that Plaintiff was a director of the corporation. However, no evidence before the trial court established that plaintiff relied on that information in agreeing to the transaction. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence before the trial court to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground;

14. Although courts sometimes have used “apparent authority” and “apparent agency” interchangeably, the distinction is important. “Apparent agency creates an agency relationship that does not otherwise exist, while apparent authority expands the authority of an actual agent.” Miller, 150 Or App at 282 n 4. Thus, apparent authority is relevant only if actual agency already has been established. Here, because plaintiff has offered no evidence to establish the existence of an actual agency, apparent authority is not implicated.);

ORCP 21(A) (Defenses and Objections, How presented) (Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person,“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency.

Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; “. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction”as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)> FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428. And; A so-called Municipal or District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal.

In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America, the supreme Court said: “The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ . . . without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.” Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).

The power of the Municipal or District Court is that of the old “justice of the peace” courts which were courts of “limited and special jurisdiction.” State v. Officer, 4 Or. 180 (1871).

Inferior tribunals are subject to the supervisory control (judicial powers), and must show affirmative proof on the face on the inferior tribunal record to sustain a conviction. “If the court is . . . of some special statutory jurisdiction it is as to such proceedings an inferior court, and not aided by presumption of jurisdiction.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or 198.

Inferior tribunals have no presumption of jurisdiction in their favor and all that need to be done by Petitioner, to throw the burden of proving jurisdiction upon Respondent State, is to contest the applicability of the inferior tribunals jurisdiction to Petitioner. ” . . . if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or. 198. And;

The constitutional rule for inferior tribunals was set down by the Oregon Supreme Court in Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 1119 (1915), a case involving a justice court:” . . . the constitutional rule that justice courts are of limited jurisdiction. …their judgments must be sustained affirmatively by positive proof that they had jurisdiction of the cases they attempt to decide.” Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 119 (1915). And;

Even the de facto Constitution and the State Statutes will clearly show that the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY is vested Solely in the office of the Elected County Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Special Prosecutor and/or Attorney General’s Office.

All so called Judges are in fact and law EXECUTIVE OFFICERS and that is why the so called JUDGE/ADMINISTRATOR CAN PRESUME TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST WHEN YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN THE AIRSPACE OF “THIS STATE” BEING ABOVE THE LAND OF “THE STATE!”THAT HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICITON.

ALL so called State Court’s are creatures of Statute created by the LEGISLATURE and are merely ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES which only have the authority or jurisdiction conferred by a Statute.

If you search carefully the Senate and House Bills and the 1st Legislative Enactment or Session Law creating the Superior Court’s in your State, you will find that it says right in your own law books, that ALL your so called State Superior Court’s are really LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURTS!

THE PEOPLE HAVE NO STATE JUDICIAL COURT’S AVALIABLE TODAY! “THIS STATE” is a de facto FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and by fraud in the inducement, presents itself as a de jure State, but in fact and law is NOT a State in Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the authority of the 1st Original Judiciary Act wherein the District of Columbia is a de facto for profit copyright private corporation.

“WHEREAS, THIS STATE” is a DE FACTO FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION under the NEW JUDICIARY ACT wherein the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA presumes Equal Footing as a de jure STATE.

The issue re the use of the terms of art by the legislative branch within the several states identifying　their legislative acts as in “this state” goes only to “Definitions” re the statute . . . should the act(s) not rise to malum se within “the state” and thereby give notice of a substantive connection to the subject matter as applying to some form of physical damage or substantive contact going to an actual controversy and a real party in interest . . . the statute has no mechanism granting authority to reach the Sovereign.　 Capital crimes therefore are prosecuted by and through the substantive statute as being within “the state” when charged.

Generally in a court proceeding you may challenge the implied charging statute by noting: “The prosecution has apparently only defined the statute as appertaining in”THIS state”, however, it appears the prosecution has failed to charge (certified”) the statute as with in “THE state” of Oregon.”　 This is why the avoidance to certify charging documents going to malum prohibitum . . . as there can be no verifiable charging documents issued and no real party in interest can come forward . . . whereas, the statutory prohibition is only defined.

REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE LIBERTY OF MAN

TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE

Murdock v. Pennsylvania  319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 “Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Byars v. U.S. , 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed… It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346 Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against willfulness.

Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.

Shapiro v. Thomson,394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.

Bailey v. State of Alabama,219 US 219 You have a right to own and contract your labor as you see fit.

Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 US 363 Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia , 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 (See citation below page 4)“Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes and other negotiable debt instruments are concerned]…. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”(Emphasis added)

Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 US 392, 103 S. Ct. 692 Addresses the untaxability of obligations of the United States by or under State authority, (31 USC 3124, formerly 742) and provides that if any taxing requiring that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax it cannot be taxed by or under State authority.

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977) “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading”.

Carmine v. Bower, 64 A. 932 “Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question, and the estoppel by misrepresentation. When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud on the other party to permit the silent party to deny what his silence has induced the other party to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel.

United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.” (Paraphrased)

The original 13th Amendment of our National Constitutional, which stated: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” Laws for the Organization of the Territory of Michigan condensed, arraigned and passed by the fifth legislative council, (1833) Source – Michigan State Library. The above noted original 13th Amendment specifically addresses the condition now in existence in America today. Whereas, Bar members referencing the British Accreditation Registry, the Temple Bar, the four Inns of Court, and particularly the Middle Court presume to do business secretly and deceptively in re commerce and as regards the financial well being of the public generally. This state of affairs is clearly address regarding who has the burden to prove jurisdiction within the Clearfield Doctrine as regards the private nature of such practice.

Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed … It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

Hodges v. U.S. , 203 US 1 (1942). “The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence.”

Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830). “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common (Natural) right and common reason are null and void.”

Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”

Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 (1884).” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.”

U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. “Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people.”

Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463.”Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.”

Fuentes v. Shevin , 407 US 67 (1972). “A waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear; contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver.”

Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722. “Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent.”

Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116, 125. “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”

Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. “Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself.”

(see also Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035; Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032; Michigan Public Utilities Com. v. Duke,
266 US 576, 69, 449.) State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.

California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918. “A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence.

“No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution. “ Reid v. Covert ,
 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

84 C.J. S. º355, Mass. – Hough v. North Adams 82 N.E. 46, 196 Mass. 290 “A failure substantially to comply with the statutory requirements as to the mode and manner or making the levy invalidates the tax: and there must be strict compliance with mandatory procedures… No tax can be sustained as valid unless it is levied in accordance to the letter of the statute. ”

With Reservation of All Rights, Remedies and Applicable Treaties without prejudice UCC 1-308 and particularly, ORSChapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 favoring the Natural Right to prevail over the statute, UCC 1-308 reserves the right under Article III due process and thereby proceedings.

“I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: July 12, 2010. (Signature_____________________SEAL(name)Beneficiary to the Trust

STATE OF                   )
                                 ) S.S.
COUNTY  OF                )

On this Day of July 12, 2010, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared  (name), personally known to me as the living soul whose name is subscribed to this instrument and acknowledged that he executed same.

___________________________________ My appointment expires: _______________ Notary SEAL

THE OPEN LETTER TO AGENTS OF THE CROWN

We the People are finally being awakened. We tracked down the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution – you know, the one you started the War of 1812 over so you could burn the original and all of the copies – Said amendment states, all of you Esquires are not permitted to have a title of nobility AND at the same time, hold public office in America. Up until now, you have been getting away with both.

 We learned that the BAR originates in the Crown Temple in London, England. Therefore, your oath to the BAR means you are not Americans, but elective agents for a foreign power. You have possess no citizenship, you are stateless persons. You claim to do business under a license to practice law. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a license to practice law. We searched in the statutes, codes, rules and regulations for every state and also their respective secretaries of state and supreme courts. No authorization for a “license to issue, for the purpose to practice law” exists anywhere. That means every one of you has “come ashore” and is operating as a “Privateer” for profit, within the midst of the American people.. JOHN HENRY DOE, ESQUIRE is a fiction that exists only on paper.

 What you do have, is simply a BAR card that authorizes you to “sail the sea of public debt” using the statutes, codes, rules and regulations to plunder and pillage the economic well being of the American people. We can’t help but notice, that all of the “black flag” law you use, is in fact, under copyright, so the People are foreclosed to use this private law, without employing you. How well are the people doing when attempting to use these laws? It isn’t easy, since you have us hanging upside down looking in the mirror trying to read the newspaper, but we determined that statutes, codes, rules and regulations are not in fact law, but the abrogation of the “Law.” Abrogate means “to abolish by authoritative action: ANNUL”. Applying the force of deadly violence, you have annulled and perverted the Law of the Land and replaced it with color of law. Color of law is a false flag, a black flag, a pirate flag. You esquires are a mere collection of actors. No license in fact and of course, no substantive law to support your fictitious claims.

 We have counted the number of statutes, codes, rules and regulations that you have created, with the intelligence endowed by your Creator and which you use against us, the American people. There are many more than 60 million statutes, codes, rules and regulations, certainly more than all of you BAR attorneys put together can keep track of absent today’s software, quarterly updates, and teams of legal researchers – and, voila! You have billing hours too!

 You “craft” statutes, codes, rules and regulations at the behest of your corrupt and chosen Masters, the ancient hate-driven cult within a hate-driven racist sect that are the tiresome take-over-the-world self appointed elite and the underlying blueprint for criminality. The beasts of the field possess more natural honor than you. You herd the People you have defrauded into the system of the Matrix like so many cattle, to be processed, robbed of their freedom, families and property, experimented upon with drug sorcery, and all too often terminated!

 You do this because the BAR Association is a hate-driven money worshipping cult. Your masters reward you with obscene hourly rates for the building of your personal empires. You are so far gone from the sight of God, that you presume to possess the authority to write rules to justify plundering and pillaging your fellow beings. You have much death, dying, and destruction on your hands.

 And your “noble cause” is what? Why, is not the perpetual U.S. bankruptcy your noble cause, your reason for destroying millions of lives minute by minute. The U.S. bankruptcy is George W. Bush’s noble cause, whereby the president presumes the authority to enact and enforce new “emergency bankruptcy laws” (statutes) that create debtor’s prisons for the People, who since 1933, have had no money of account, to pay a debt with, the United States, an insolvent corporate body, is itself bankrupt as a matter of agenda, and has presumed to “take” from us, our productive energy, as a surety to issue the necessary credit to float the public debt.

In fact all so-called governing bodies in the U.S. are bankrupt subsidiary corporations existing in the nature of federal-state-county and municipal entities, based on the premise of an ongoing series of “Federal Projects” funded on Human Capital. The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is an insolvent corporation and does not exist in fact. All law firms are in fact bankrupt. There has been no money since 1933! We the people have no law because we have been denied access to honest money to secure property interests to ourselves.

 Whether or not you BAR attorneys swore a secret oath to administer the U.S. bankruptcy, the said bankruptcy is an integral part of each and every letter you send, every form you submit, every court pleading you file, every plea bargain and negotiate. It is a fact of your every professional thought, besides billable hours. “Law” has nothing to do with what your do.

At this point you attorneys have made your true purpose patently obvious. “Attorning” is defined as: “. . . to take all of the property of the People and convert said property to the control of the Chosen Masters. Well, your masters’ day is on the verge of being over. It may seem, the said Masters are consolidating their control of all the Earth, therefore assuring your lucrative positions as their agents for profit and mayhem; and always profit; but we continue to expose these Elite in this forum and many others.

 You are being destroyed by leaks from within. From the 13 old European families of banking perversion to the Everytown, USA municipal traffic tribunal judge (who would not be caught dead retiring with less than $30 million of the People’s money) and all the Satanist racketeering extortionist blackmailing pedophile warmongering purveyors of human flesh in between, the self appointed elite are at their end.

 Some of you attorneys may be hearing the jungle drums and growing uneasy, but most of you are 100% in your ego at all times and proud of being arrogant. Your arrogance may interfere with your understanding of this message, but check it out, because now it is your turn to “understand” something. The jig is up. The truth herein is ugly, but we believe Americans are very angry about the truth to date and that they are ready to hear more. Many will even act on it according to their conscience.

 Just when we thought your deeds could not possibly get more hideous, we discovered that you create commercial paper for each inmate in every prison and put a price on him personally. You hypothecate that price many times. Correctional Corporation of America (Nashville, Tennessee) creates the bonds, and Lehman Brothers underwrites those bonds for being bought and sold on the world financial markets. The Chosen Masters cut you in on the deals and you all take profits from this. We are enraged to know that U.S. corporations are being funded by our brothers and sisters who were busted for statutory crimes that damage no one, a prime example is for not having a current driver license. You BAR attorneys created crimes out of nothing and wrote the rules for this heinous and sickening theft of the People’s derivative productive energy, all for administering the U.S. bankruptcy and your own unjust enrichment. We the People, the ones in whom the power is truly vested, are putting an end to your trafficking in human flesh and spirit.

 We used to have common law courts in this country, courts that addressed substance, property in fact. In common law, unless a living being has been injured or property loss has occurred there has been no crime. We also found out that you BAR attorneys raised the level of the Sea on paper so that it “covers” the land, thereby fraudulently subjecting us to admiralty/maritime law, to the Law of the Sea, to literal piracy. A cop pulling us over on a re-venue stop, is an act of piracy. It is a kidnapping. That’s a pirate flag he’s flying, so cops reading this take heed, for the Chosen Masters put you where the rubber meets the road. Get this through your heads now: codes do not apply to the People, only to the corporations i.e. fictitious “PERSONS” for which they were written, and that means you, and it means you have been coerced to become nothing more than corporate free agents as were the “privateers” of old, the Pirate. Some of you became cops in order to be respected. But we have been giving you not respect but fear, and after enough abuse, people overcome their fears, becoming dangerous to everyone around them . . . is that what we want? We have a God-given right to defend ourselves and our property and to presume to regulate away the right to use deadly force were necessary is a fraud perpetrated by the fearful elite.

The Chosen Masters have decreed that there are too many of us, so you BAR attorneys make it “legal” on paper for vile toadies of the Chosen Masters to poison us and the entire Earth through the use of prescription drugs, our food, the air, our water, and the land, and when we sicken, we are forced accept dangerous drugs, forced upon us, and when we die, our former employers receive death benefits$$$$$$ paid through secret, illegal life insurance policies on us, unjustly enriching a variety of corporations so that the Chosen Masters may take profits. (Note: Each Death Certificate is issued on banknote security paper and thereby, becomes a “certificated security”, in the nature of a “Bearer Bond.” Your Social Security Number is the identifying account number of the “Constructive Trust Account” that was held in your name, with the U.S. Treasury. This Trust Account issued, because your were intentionally defrauded by the Congress when the Senate declared in: Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” (Emphasis added) It is well settled in law, that upon the commission of a fraud, a “Trust Account” will execute in the name of the defrauded party.” The Senate needed these accounts to float the public debt and once the account holder dies, ignorant of his or her account, that account defaults to the fed. The police powers are used to keep these account holder in line and ignorant, while they’re being treated as a common economic wage slave.

You lawyers will answer to the People in the lawful courts we establish and you must answer to your families, friends, neighbors and all whom you sold out. Just about everyone – except Freemasons of course

 You BAR attorneys are the original back-door men, the ones in the back room, failing to adjust the accounts. You never pay your bills. Once you take a case you are the holder of the account for the case. This means, under Public Law 73-10 wherein, all crimes are commercial crimes, and under Public Policy, you must adjust the account to offset the liability for closure and settlement. You always fail to make the ledger entry – there is NO money and the People are exempt from levy – so you attorneys never pay your bills, you defer the tax in our names and transfer the charges against us, putting us in debtors prison under the misnomer of tax cheats and tax protesters instead.

You get paid whether you “win” your case or not, and the judicial system enforces the payment of your fees. This is conclusive proof of the criminality inherent in the U.S. judicial system. What else is a criminal but someone in possession of a valuable commodity – productive human energy – that was acquired without exchanging something of value to acquire or pay for that productive energy?

Well, it is painfully obvious to the People that these courts are not our courts and can grant no relief or remedy in our true names; we are forever barred from remedy in these colorable courts i.e administrative tribunals. We are going to do away with them and you. Don’t look now, but persons in positions of authority are going to seize the reins. Even now we are turning the tide for a permanent return to a constitutional republic. The People will no longer tolerate the lies, the corruption and the death that you litigate and legislate as your daily bread.

You BAR attorneys are all drunkards, drunk on debt, chasing Federal Reserve Notes which are mere notes of debt (death). You have made it illegal for the People to remove themselves from debt! You put every man, woman and child under the probate statutes, transferring our colorable wealth into our constructive trust, so you could access these private accounts to create life-destroying industries such as taxation and the JUST-US system. You attorneys are destroying the entire world, and you cannot make it clearer that you are anti-Life. Through trickery and the deceitful use of language, you would reduce our lives to nothing more than a perpetual surety for perpetual commercial transactions. We who now must pursue such life-diminishing goals as “getting out of debt” or “making the rent” or “paying the bills”, we demand that the BAR stand down and stand aside, now, and make way for the true Law.

For starters, acknowledge openly, the People are in fact the Creditors and the system is the debtor and thereby, the people are as a matter of remedy and necessity, pre-paid and exempt from levy and due equal dollar for dollar payment for all of the business done in the name and account number of each American’s constructive trust account.

In common law there is only two laws: do not harm another living being, and honor all of your contracts. But then there is　really only one Law: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Speaking of “personal debt”, we learned from our research that the People, the living men and women of this land and all the lands, are the source of all credit for the issue of all fiat (pretend) money; i.e., “credit”; i.e., “commercial credit”. So-called credit does not exist until We create it. We living Beings of Light are the source of all the energy that flows through us and is expressed as “credit”. Thus, the People can never be debtors, and you attorneys have slandered our names in your collection letters. We will make claims against you for the slander of title and based on your deceit, so EXPERIAN, TRANS UNION, EQUIFAX, take note. Your BAR attorneys will not be able to save you. EXPERIAN, TRANS UNION and EQUIFAX are bankrupt corporations. Yes, People? in this the Bizarre world the credit reporting agencies are insolvent.

You are parasites. You possess no value, you create no value. You bring nothing to the table. All of the invisible so-called contracts i.e adhesion contracts, by which you believe you have us in a chokehold are null and void for lack of consideration, lack of full disclosure, for threats, duress and coercion in the formation of the presumptive contracts, and for acts unconscionable!

We the People demand forgiveness of all pretended debt. We demand the restoration of money of substance, backed by substance i.e. gold and silver. We demand our money back for all the illegal income tax collected as against our right to our own labor, that you have converted (stolen and given to a foreign corporation; i.e., the Federal Reserve’s collection agency INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE – also a bankrupt corporation). We demand the return of all the value you defrauded from us o fund your cash cow, the Social Security Ponzi scheme. Inasmuch as the court collected funds, are collected by corporate clerks and thereby, are for cause, illegal and cannot be added to municipal budget. Wherefore, the People’s fine payments go directly into the judge’s retirement fund. We demand that you make reparations to us for having defrauded and enslaved us.

We demand the immediate stand-down of INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Further, once INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has returned to us every penny plus interest, we demand the permanent abolishment of INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Then we shall sue our corporate employers for theft (Form W-4 and wage levies).

We learned that the origin and intent re the chain of political power of our form of government, begins with the individual American, then moves to the county, then the state and finally on to the U.S. Congress. (The political power flows DOWN to government from the source of all political, POWER, the people. Within our Republic, where all of our natural rights remain intact, our highest elected official is the county sheriff. We will restore lawful government first at home, in our counties. Generals and Provost Marshals, duty calls like never before, and we demand you do your duty and take into custody, those county sheriffs who knowingly cooperate and are complicit with these foreign usurpers!

 We will open the prison doors and send home everyone imprisoned for “Malum Prohibitum” convitions and every other innocent victim of your unlawful codes. They will go home with all of their property restored to them plus reparations and public apologies. A goodly portion of those reparations will come from your pocket, Mr. BAR Attorney. We will return back to the prisons all of the real criminals routinely set loose into our communities by the pedophilic treasonous “authorities”, and many, many of you BAR attorneys will join them for your crimes.

Judges merit a special note. Municipal traffic courts, bankruptcy courts, probate courts i.e. courts of prize, federal courts, makes no difference, you are the most venal and rapacious type of creature imaginable. We have awakened to the real state of affairs: that we live in the Bizarre world. Thus it should come as no surprise that the man in the black dress, supposedly learned in the “law”, but forsakes that law for the code of the statute merchant, is in reality an extortionist, a career criminal, the most unlawful creature on the face of the Earth. The judge’s “bench” i.e. (“commercial bank”) is a moveable feast, feeding on the creative credit energy of the American people, his black robes are highly appropriate for a bird of carrion.

You are all in breach of the Covenant, in breach of the Trust, in breach of the Contract. In your souls and in commerce, you are in fact, dishonorable. Your rights are forfeit and your property is forfeit – trust or no trust.

We the People who are our Creator’s Beings of Light are taking responsibility and taking over. We are creating a world without parasites. Even as you read this we are … phasing you out. You cannot turn back this tide.

Members of the BAR, here are your choices: Come into the Light, or go into the Light. You very dark ones face un-creation or the Hell planet. You will not be missed.

Offered on behalf of the American People:

Note: BAR Attorneys crafted law in 1980 that purports the attorney to represent both sides in a case! It is however, a felony for an attorney to accept remuneration from any party the attorney does not openly represent. So, should you experience a judge attempting to assign you a court appointed attorney in any case, simply claim conflict of interest, citing the attorney, being an officer of the court and at the same time. Presuming to represent your Constructive Trust. (In today’s Statute Merchant Tribunals, you personally aren’t and can’t be re-presented by an attorney. As the beneficiary of your trust, you are coerced by the BAR and the judge, to accept the prosecutors offer of an attorney to represent your constructive trust. This misleading scheme comes within the provisions of the Statute of Frauds!