, , , , , , , , , ,

(For Austin) 




See the following recorded facts:


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 defineswillin 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.”


Maxim of law of like kind –

Paper to Paper Flesh to Flesh


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.);


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:


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.)


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


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,
This Act may be cited as the ‘No Taxation Without Representation Act’.
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.
(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:
‘(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. personis a word of the Private Civil Law, and a “manis 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


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.”