Challenge Jurismydiction!

Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to lose!

If they attempt to tell you that you can’t question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction.

If it [jurisdiction] doesn’t exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. …without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State’s/ USA ‘s cause.

Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

A word from our sponsor. Click the ad or visit shop.freedomfromgovernment.,org to learn more.

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).”

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.”The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

“A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.”the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.

PEOPLE secure in their PERSONS

The 4th amendment is very interesting because it refers to both “people” and “persons” in the same sentence as separate things.It says that the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to be SECURE in their PERSONS.

This tells me a few things just by looking at it. First thing that jumps out at me is that the people have a person so they could not possibly be the same thing. Second, if we have the right to be SECURE in our PERSONS than cops cannot just demand it because of my third point, which is that if we have the right to be secure IN our person than it makes sense that we have a choice whether to even be IN the person at all.

When you think about exactly what a “person” is, it starts getting a little creepy. Reminiscent of idolatry, how can you be IN a person (stop with the dirty mind stuff) the legislation pretty much only refers to persons and not people except for maybe once at the beginning of most state constitutions where it usually says that “All people are created free and equal…” blah blah blah, but then that is the last time that they refer to people. It’s all about persons from there on out. If you don’t believe me, please look it up for yourself.

Are you going to sell out to a false idol “person” and forsake the real creator? You better get your theoretical ducks in a row because if you hadn’t noticed, morbidity of persons is on the rise.

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev 18:4

CASE DISMISSED! Out of court!

Here is an image of the original citation.

My friend Jaron has been doing some great work! He recently received this citation in Colorado and then fought it and beat it (but not necessarily how you would expect… he beat it WITHOUT court)!

What he did was he sent a complaint to the citing officers boss making him aware of the following:

Complaint form page one.

Complaint page two.
Complaint page three.
Complaint page four.
Complaint page five.
Complaint page six.
Complaint page seven.

And then after this complaint was submitted, Jaron received a call from the sarge and asked him what he wanted, and here is what he got!

No balance found.
No balance found!


My email conversation with an attorney

I am so happy that an attorney has decided to give me free “legal” advice, so I am giving him a little bit of my “non-legal” advice back. Let me know what you think in the comment section of my most recent response down at the bottom here, lol.

He also LOVES to steal my intellectual material and then use it to make money. If you look at his channel he uses the likeness of my design on the thumbnails of many of his videos and he admits to making money from my material while claiming “fair use” and inciting his audience and not correcting them when they say things like I deserve a death sentence for not having a “proper” license plate.

He’s got a bunch of reddit/discord trolls so I need to counter-attack so leave a comment on his page. The good news is that they are “textbook disinfo sockpuppet” intelligent, so they go down quick. I am not trying to tell you what to say to him, but try to be kind (I know it can be hard). He can be found here –

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:54 PM wrote:
Hey man, 

I could care less about who or what you want to make fun of on your channel but I was requested to take the video down and I did because there was a kid on there. The video is no longer available to view on my channel at this time and I probably will not put it back up. I didn’t particularly want to take the video down but I did because there was a minor involved and I was requested to remove it. The same one who requested that I take down the video is not someone who I would want at the plaintiff’s table with me as a defendant if you know what I mean, and I told them that I would request for you to also take down the video in which a minor and particularly identifying information of that minor are contained. You do what you want though, they requested that I ask you to take it down. So will you take it down? Now that my duty is done I would rather post a video of my success rather than my friend’s failure so maybe we can break down the next video In which I am pulled over where there are not as many distractions. I plan on continuing to go live frequently and also continuing to travel frequently.

I don’t typically give the cops any documents at a traffic stop because the 4th amendment does not say that the people are to be secure in their person documents and shit except during traffic stops. Even though both terms “people” and “person” are used in that sentence I know that they are not synonymous and why on earth would they put both of them there like that? At any rate, there is no provision in the 4th amendment for traffic stops and you would likely not have so much fun breaking down a “traffic” stop where I am behind the wheel because they are not nearly as entertaining as the one that you chose to use to defame me by proxy with recently.

I thought about it and while the subject of this traffic stop did have his own way of handling the stop it was not necessarily the way that I would have handled it. I feel like people are misdirecting their hostility in my direction and while that is a minor annoyance it is nowhere near the damage that some of those people do to their own credibility when they decide to comment. For instance; I don’t have any “master mason” connections to dismiss a ticket for me not am I a veteran. And while you think that I am evil because I sell books and stickers and stuff then you should really have a problem with Amazon or I hear at they will make me a license plate with a big “FUCK YOU” printed on it so let’s demonize them for their evil as well. Someone on your page said that I deserved the death sentence or life sentence or some shit for something that I didn’t even do so that is some shit that I am going to deliberate on what I am going to do to resolve it but man how long do you think that you can publicly ridicule people before you become ethically improper and begin to give your profession an even worse reputation than it currently has? 

Anyway, I am going to leave everything alone with you and I don’t think that I will be taking you up on that offer of the live “debate” because my time is valuable and you have demonstrated a level of bias in your previous content that I believe would interfere with the authenticity of any debate on your platform. Nothing against you, as a matter of fact, I wanted to tell you that while I appreciate your willingness to offer me an opportunity without being muted or censored at a debate with you, the chances of me volunteering to a consensual conversation without the pressure of a debating atmosphere would be more agreeable to me, but I still can’t do that until my uneasiness about your bias is resolved. Anyway, hope you are having a great day, but I have lots of work to do so I am going to get going.


On 05.02.2021 07:29, Artrexis Lives wrote:

Hello Trent,

To respond to your initial request, while I will not take down the video, I will compromise by blurring and/or muted any instance where the child speaks or is in camera. I should have that completed over the weekend.

To your next point, there’s a lot the 4th Amendment doesn’t say. And just like any other legal document, the 4th Amendment is subject to interpretation, is it not? What is a “search”? What is a “seizure”? What did the Framers mean by “persons”? These are terms that have to be fleshed out through situations and circumstances where individuals are charged with crimes by the state. Because the context in which someone interacts with the government may change our perspective of what a “search” or “seizure” means under the 4th Amendment. In our system of government, the judiciary is tasked with interpreting the law and how it applies to the factual circumstances presented. In the context of a traffic stop, the Supreme Court has held that the States can require drivers/travelers/whatever you want to call it to identify themselves to a police officer during a lawful traffic stop. Again, what does “lawful” mean? Subject to interpretation as well! The Court did not find that this requirement violated the 4th Amendment. 

As to your last point, I fully understand your reservations. I am actively hostile to your views on the law and its applicability. But I would like to believe that I can be fair in any discussion that we may have. I maintain my promise to not actively mute you in the discussion, and to offer you as much time as you need to make your point across. As an example, I gave you moderator status on my channel during the livestream (to the ire of my other moderators and viewers) precisely to ensure that you were not censored or otherwise timed out by my peers. I did that as a show of good faith in my assurances that I will be fair in any discussion. And it need not be in any sort of formal debate setting. In fact, most of my discussions have been informal. When I had a discussion with ArchAngel (another sovereign youtuber), we styled our discussion by asking each other 10 questions regarding the law, and giving each other time to respond and rebut. 

Thank you for your time and correspondence.


On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:40 PM wrote:


To respond to your initial paragraph. I may forward your response directly to them so that they can see your terms. I am not at liberty to accept your answer but thank you for it.

In the next paragraph, you rely on a “supreme court” and a 4th amendment to say that I have to follow words written down literally centuries ago when I have never sworn to uphold or defend ANY documents to my knowledge and I would challenge you to show how a very old piece of parchment grants any rights to me that were not already granted to me by my creator also known as nature’s God? You see you get all caught up in these documents and opinions when my God-given rights are NON-NEGOTIABLE and NOT FOR SALE and I CERTAINLY will not be defrauded into exchanging them for state-regulated statues of statutes of codes when those codes are not from my creator and your “Supreme court” is NOT in my jurisdiction and your scam of “representation” is evil because I only need to be present not summoned or conjured or appearing. So while your documents and decisions may very well be interpreted, my unalienable rights are very clear and even self-evident. For example, I have the right to be living (even when you do not correct your audience when they tell me that I need the death sentence for using the next God-given right I am about to notice you of), and I have the fucking right to use a machine to move myself! I do not have the right to hurt others so I am RESPONSIBLE when I am using a machine to move myself. PERIOD. No supreme court can tell me otherwise. No old document can tell me otherwise. And certainly, a cop can tell me otherwise and even try to intimidate me and harass me and coerce me and threaten me to tell me otherwise but I will NEVER SUBMIT TO HIS AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT IS A FALSE AUTHORITY if he is trying to take away my free will when I am not harming others. And if you don’t agree with me I will not force you to agree with me but I will as least respect your ability to do so unlike what you have done to me. So fuck off with your word games and evil black books of spells and advocating taking away of people’s free will. Also, a “democracy” is slavery for the 49% that don’t agree with the majority.

And I am not going to collab with you to make videos but I will gladly continue our conversation via email.


What is a law?

Can anyone tell me what a “law” is? Is it something that is written by legislatures? Is it something written by lawyers? Or, are laws written by God? Or are “laws” even written down at all? Which “law” book would you find the “law of gravity” in? A “law” does not need to be written down to see evidence of it, and the “law” is directly related to your rights. Do you know why it is directly related to your “rights”? The “law” is so simple and so closely related to your “rights” because the “rights” are the law. What are your “rights”? Have you ever told a cop; “I know my rights!” Do you know why saying that you know your rights sounds odd? Because everyone knows their rights inherently if you know the difference between right and wrong.

I might as well tell you right now while we are on this topic that there is no constitution that “gives” you rights. There is only a constitution that all public servants swear an oath to uphold and protect. It has nothing to do with the people, except that the constitution is rules for government to follow so that our rights are protected. The constitution does not give you rights, your rights are inherent or natural and they do not come from the government.

The constitution isn’t even applicable to you, but we do use it to hold government servants accountable. All the rules are rules to restrict government. And they have tricked us to think that the government is the authority because of the constitution but they are not even enforcing the constitution. Everything is backwards because they are enforcing “rules”, “statutes”, “codes”, and “policy” on people who it does not apply to because they are not employed by government. And like I said before if their policy applies to me, then I need to be getting a regular paycheck because I don’t follow orders for free. Just think, when a public servant pulls you over and writes you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, he is breaking the law. He is breaking the law because he is forcing or enforcing policy that is only meant for agents of government. Not only that but he is actually extorting and committing piracy on land by pillaging and unjustly enriching himself and his organization by forcing you to pay for not following his rules.

All that a “right” is, is something that is not “wrong”. So your rights are things that you are allowed to do where no one else should “infringe” on those rights, because they are not “wrong”. It is that simple, although you may not be able to see the simplicity of it right away. It really is simple. The “law” is do no harm… and that is pretty much it

Got Insurance?

Any and every insurance scheme is racketeering, If you look to the uniform bonding code any law that is made compulsory is gambling/racketeering and any judge who “knowingly” enforces a racketeering scheme can be disbarred.

The key here is “knowingly” he can’t deny it once you forward that let him know that you know.

Anyway, I have never been formally charged with an insurance charge because of this fact in court.

Let’s go deeper what’s the first thing the government wants you to do when you buy a car? They want you to register it so now it technically and legally belongs to whoever issues you the registration papers. You can not even be “legally” obligated to pay insurance on a car that is not even yours, can you? That is fraud so they made compulsory insurance NO-FAULT at the same time because they had to.

Let’s say you do have an accident, you still have to pay the deductible which is usually the first $1000 on the damage so it’s not insurance at all, is it? They know that most fender benders don’t cost much more than that. then if you factor in the total amount of fraud you paid into, all the years that you have paid, your car would be paid off over and over again a thousand times already.

To go deeper into the scam of insurance. It is not an assurance of anything in fact it is the opposite. the prefix “IN” negates the word.

It makes the coherent ‘incoherent’ by design, the tolerant intolerant to their wordplay like myself, the sufficient insufficient because you pay out everything to this fraud and if you live this lie long enough it makes the sane insane.


I have never used insurance and I use my car very carefully due to this fact, I see people flying around like maniacs every day because they have this false sense of security from their policy.

Resident vs Native

Four (4) Classes of Citizenship in America

1. Oregonian (State Citizen, highest form, on the land by right, owns land (home), not property (resident). Right to do all except violate another mans rights. Inhabits land that is private, land not owned by United States) Property is that which one has a right to, not ownership of. Property tax is different than a land tax.

2. Resident = Resident Alien (An alien residing on the land by permission.) All “state” license require proof of residency. Taking a license waives rights held by the Oregonian.

3. United States citizen of right 1790 to 1868, (Pre 14th Amendment citizen)

4. 14th Amendment State citizen from 1868 to present. Inferior to all of the above.

(( citizen = subject of a citi, citi is a body politic (unified group of people) ))

Three *proverbial states in America are?

Below are three of the main “state” distinctions one should be aware of.

–1. *state Oregon = the land that is within the exterior boundaries of what we call the *territory of Nebraska.  This “state” term is a noun.  This state is presently occupied by Nebraskans (native by right).

–2. *state of Oregon (legally styled as – STATE OF OREGON) = a created entity, part of the perpetual union, created by chartered permission pursuant to the United States Constitution.  This “state” term is a noun.  This *state consists of resident aliens.  Resident aliens are not classed as native; they reside only by permission and are governed by the Federal Congress and State Legislative written law.

–3. United States *state = a created entity, created pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation (legally styled as The United States of America), and the North West Ordinance.  A tool for the Confederacies needs.

So if asked; are you a state citizen, ask which state?

If asked for a resident address; reply by saying do you have any evidence that I am a resident of any state.

Resident is not a location it is a class of privilege, a class that state jurisdiction governs entirely.

US courts have clearly identified the differences in association (contract), and citizenship, of the various states.

One can live in Oregon as a native or as a resident.

A native is by right, a resident is of permission.

Natives are governed by the people’s state of law.

Residents are governed by the state entities that the native people allow to operate on the same land.

A “resident” is a subject to US, state, written law.

A “native” is subject to God’s law.

A resident does business (travel, etc.) as a granted privileges of the state.

A native does business (travel etc.) by grant, permission, of God.

When one gets a state drivers license he is presumed to be a resident of Oregon and thus governed by the state, an alien, not a native.  No one can get a state drivers license without signing a document that they are a resident in/of that given state.  Natives need no such license for they have a right to the open highways of Oregon

Such license is only considered *prima-facie evidence of residency and can be rebutted because residency is a contract and no contract is valid if a right is given up without full disclosure.

Learn more about maintaining independence (contract avoidance) from any deceptive “state” near you.

I recommend having little association with godless states.

NOTE – A 14th Amendment citizen is vastly different than a “state” citizen, and both of those are vastly different that a Oregon “native” citizen.



*pro·ver·bi·al, adjective

5.  having become an object of common mention or reference:

**state, noun

1.  the condition of a thing, as with respect to attributes

*state, adjective

15.  of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.

16.  made, maintained, or chartered by or under the authority of one of the commonwealths that make up a federal union: 

*prima-facie evidence – evidence / facts considered to be true until controverted.

How George Washington broke the government

“What Does the Constitution Say?”

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera:
George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector

Everyone realizes that government is broken from the top on down, but no one has figured out that it was George Washington, the reputed Father of his Country, who broke it. The country George Washington fathered wasn’t God’s country it was the territory and other property that belonged to the United States of America. “His Country” was code for “the Constitution of the United States.” There are two Constitutions: “this Constitution” is the written one, “the Constitution of the United States,” is the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America.

After the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, the term “United States” can mean the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. The “Constitution,” in the oath of Office of President of the United States, has that meaning. Constitution in the oath means property inventory. The President of the United States is to “preserve, protect and defend” territory and property of the United States of America as an employee of the Congress of the United States.

Washington took an oath of personal employment to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” for a government employer. Washington could have taken the Article VI oath specifically provided for “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States.” Instead, Washington set the secret precedent that he and future Presidents would work for the Congress of the United States as its employees.

Washington’s agreement to work for Congress amounted to a false oath, because everyone not intimate with members of the First Congress and George Washington believed that the oath would bind George Washington “to support this Constitution.” That mistaken belief that “this Constitution” had been adopted enslaved millions of Americans to a Constitution of no authority.

The United States, in Congress assembled, under the Articles of Confederation had no power to make laws or to tax. After the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, that Congress had authority to make laws and tax in the Northwest Territory. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 confirmed in the Congress of the United States authority to make laws and tax within the United States. The first Congress was made up of delegates from the original thirteen states. Ratification of “this Constitution” by nine States created a Committee of States pursuant to Article IX of the Articles of Confederation. Ratification by all thirteen States converted this Committee of States into the present Senate of the United States.

This is the story of how he broke the government and bent the law just so he could see central government revived and used to make politicians more prosperous. I explain in this report to the people of America exactly how George Washington broke the government. If you have ever been in trouble because someone claimed you violated federal written law, the United States Code, you can blame George Washington. If you know someone now in trouble because of the written law, you must share this report with that person. It is written especially so that any person held captive by the government on the pretext of the violation of written law can take just one or two pages from those that follow and understand the impact George Washington has had on their personal freedom.

The truth shall make you free. This is why this is not written as a book. There are thousands of books written about George Washington, the Constitution, government and the law none of which will make you free. I believe that the truth found in what I have written has the power to make you and others free. You are free to take all or part of this report and share it with anyone who needs to be made free.

Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed. Broken American government has been falling apart steadily since George Washington first broke it. As I explain in this report, fixing the government is as easy as getting the President Elect to take an oath “to support this Constitution.” That part of the oath of Office of President of the United States to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” explains that the “United States” means the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America.
The secret power of the government was the knowledge that the “United States” meant the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. Anyone doing anything that was subject to the legislative power of Congress was subject to taxation. The President of the United States was, of course, in charge of the United States. It was subject to his administration, hence, today everything the President of the United States does is his administration. Technically, that administration is limited to the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, but the President of the United States has his ways of making you consent to his administration.

Without the two powers of imprisonment and the power to tax, the America of today could not exist. Let’s hope that this revelation will eventually result in freeing all the innocent people held captive in America’s prisons allegedly guilty only of violating written law.

George Washington broke the government by taking the oath of Office of President of the United States, instead of the oath of office to the Office of President. Washington, the great man, was elected to the Office of President under the Constitution and President of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation. As President, George Washington was supposed to appoint an administrator to the Office of President of the United States, when he appointed himself President of the United States he created a dictator that to this day claims to run the country.

I know most people will dismiss my discovery as preposterous. They will claim that all three Offices of President are rightly held by the same person elected to the Office of President by the Electoral College. Well, it is true that the Electoral College also selects the President of the United States of America when they pick the person to fill the Office of President, but they do not pick the President of the United States that Office is appointive “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

Two out of three might not be bad when picking horse races, but it is disastrous in government, when the wrong two offices are combined. The Constitution combined the President of the United States of America and the Office of President that combination joined the Articles of Confederation and the territory that belonged to the United States of America. Washington took the dictatorial power of the President of the United States over the territory of the United States of America and combined it with the real self defense government power of the United States, in Congress assembled to produce a President that appeared to have police power that extended beyond the territory and property belonging to the United States of America.

There is no other way to present this story than by constant repetition. Basic legal research should have revealed that the Office of President of the United States is a dictatorship long ago, as that Office has no definite term or qualifications. To Americans, the thought that George Washington was a dictator is totally unacceptable, but the evidence is irrefutable. I present my findings and conclusions to those who are imprisoned in America, because they are constantly seeking relief from long prison sentences. They are more willing to consider alternative explanations of historical facts, if it will assist in their release. The facts that I present here, while related to the central theme of illegitimate Presidential authority, are in no particular order. Facts are presented in a “stream of consciousness” that I hope will raise the consciousness of the reader so a dialogue and an exchange of ideas can begin. It is hoped that this kind of presentation will invite curiosity and further research.

Constitutional lawyers and scholars won’t admit it, but they are taught the Constitution by constant repetition in the reading of United States Supreme Court opinions. Those opinions are written by Justices appointed by the President of the United States and not by Judges appointed by the President, who is also President of the United States of America. The President of the United States can be defined by legislation as “President,” but such a statute law cannot amend the Constitution to make the President of the United States the President in the Office of President.

Anyone who learns constitutional law by reading those opinions is getting an interpretation that favors the President of the United States as holder of executive power and Commander in Chief. The “one supreme Court” found in Article III of the Constitution has never been ordained and established by Congress, so it does not exist. Who could appoint the Judges of such a constitutional court? Ever since George Washington took the oath of Office of President of the United States every person elected to the Office of President has taken the same oath and has left the Office of President vacant. The written Constitution in Article II Section 2 identifies the President as having the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”…to appoint “Judges of the supreme Court.”

The President of the United States and not the President appoints Justices to a Supreme Court created by legislative power derived from the power to administer the territory and property belonging to the United States of America. Could a President of the United States of America appoint Judges to the “one supreme Court?” The President of the United States of America could only do so if he or she had sworn or affirmed the Article VI “to support this Constitution.” Taking that oath “Adopts” the Constitution by the person who holds the Office of President thereby validating judicial appointments to Article III courts, provide the Advice and Consent of the Senate is obtained.

Practically no one in America knows that the President of the United States has no definite term of office and there are no qualifications to hold that office. The Office of President is not the same as the President of the United States of America, even though the Offices are occupied by the same person. Those Offices would be occupied by the same person, if the President Elect had ever taken the Article VI oath “to support this Constitution.” This information is presented in what may seem to be a very repetitive manner for the purpose of accurately identifying the three Offices of President and to make it easy for the reader to verify the information against the written Constitution or the Internet. Government, media and public education have had more 220 years to fool the public I only have a few pages to teach you how to read the Constitution as it was really written.

Washington was elected to the Office of President on February 4, 1789, but he took the oath of Office to the Office of President of the United States on April 30, 1789, the exact date Washington broke the government. Washington had no right to pick himself to be President of the United States, because that self-appointment had to be confirmed by the Senate and it left the Office of President vacant.

To be fair to Washington, the government was already broken when he took the oath of the Office of President of the United States. Government by king or president was permanently broken in America, when the Americans made good on the Declaration of Independence. Government by the consent of the governed meant that eventually very few would willingly consent to be governed except by trickery or deceit. George Washington’s taking of an oath to be President of the United States instead of the oath of Office of President marked the beginning of government by trick and deception. The written Constitution is the Government’s manual for the institution of trickery and deceit as national policy. The coronation of George Washington was disguised as an inauguration, but the event launched the Presidential trinity of President of the United States, President of the United States of America and Office of President. The substitution of the President of the United States for the Office of President far surpasses any other past act of deceit because it is still undetected. That, of course, will end with the publication of this report.

The national government cannot be trusted founded as it is on the intentional vacancy of the Office of President and the continual deceit of the President Elect’s self-appointment to the Office of President of the United States. George Washington expected to be discovered at any time, so plausible deniability was written into the Constitution for his protection. Doubters need look no farther than Washington’s second inaugural address for signs of Washington’s misgivings that he might be found out. As you read on, you will find that the Constitutional Convention created for Washington a series of qualifications that he could not meet to be the first holder of the Office of President making it very convenient to take the Office of President of the United States to save the country from chaos. Four years after he failed to qualify to the Office of President, George Washington did qualify to the Office of President. His second term he had to cheat and take the oath of the Office of President of the United States again.

Fixing the United States Government is as easy as taking the oath of Office of President of the United States that is found at Article II Section 1 Clause 8 and moving it to Article I where it belongs. Moving the oath to where it belongs could be proposed by the Libertarians as an amendment to the Constitution. The problem of bad government lies in getting a President Elect to take the right oath. If the right oath was taken, the Constitution and the United States Government would then make sense. If the oath of the President of the United States appeared after Article I Section 3 Clause 5, it might be confused with an oath of the Vice President of the United States, but it wouldn’t be confused with the oath of the Office of the President.

The next President Elect must take the Office of President by swearing or affirming, “to support this Constitution,” the correct Article VI oath. The President should then appoint someone sufficiently competent to the Office of President of the United States, so that the approval of two thirds of the Senate could be obtained. The government was broken by George Washington when he appointed himself to be President of the United States and allowed everyone to believe he was President of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, President under the written Constitution and President of the United States, an Officer of the Congress of the United States. The government can only be fixed by a wide scale admission that every President Elect has been wrong before and the former erroneous tradition will no longer be observed. Now, that is change that can be believed.

Continue Reading:

You too can make the District Attorney speechless in under 4 questions!

My (very interesting) conversation with a couple of Washington County District Attorneys

Handing out copies of my book in front of the courthouse and jail.

Last week when my sister was being held illegally against her will, I went and handed out free copies of my new book Freedom from Government; How to Reclaim Your Power around the courthouse and jail area. I had nice pleasant conversations with many people, but I had one book left and I happened upon a male and female attorney having a casual conversation and even playing on a recently felled old growth in front of the courthouse.

I approached them and asked Are you attorneys?

They replied, Yes, we are.

And I said, You dont mind me asking you a few questions do you?

And the male attorney standing on a large log says, You dont already have an attorney do you?

I replied, Definitely not. as I removed the last of my books that I had brought with me from my briefcase, flipped open to chapter 2, titled Attorneys and Representation.

I wasted no time and immediately went on with So, as an attorney where does your loyalty lie? To whom is your first duty? The court, or the client?

He gave an answer that was obviously easy for him, almost like an honor student in school he replies, matter-of-factually, We swear an oath to the State of Oregon.

To this I respond, So your loyalty is not with the client. I continue, And now that we know to whom your loyalty lies, maybe we should investigate an attorneys actual relationship with his client.

I address the male attorney again, Are you familiar with the Corpus Jurus Secundum, legal encyclopedia? The rulebook for attorneys

He replies, Yes, we used it in school.

I start reading from chapter 2 of my book, quoting from their own rulebook, A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law and then further in the paragraph Clients are also known as Wards of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorney.

The male attorney does not respond, so I continue, So what exactly is a Ward of the Court?And without waiting for a response, I continue with, A Ward of the Court is defined by the supreme court as; Infants and persons of unsound mind, placed by the court under the care of a guardian.

I get the vibe that these people do not want to be talking to me all of the sudden, but I was not done quite yet, I went on with, Are you familiar with the term Properia Persona?

The male attorney continues with, I think I heard about that in school what does it mean?

And then I make him instantly regret asking me that. I respond, Well, you are aware of persons representing themselves Pro Se, correct? I dont get how someone can represent themselves, if they just are themselves, so when I go to court it is always in my Properia Persona which is Latin for my Proper Person.

I knew our conversation would not last much longer, so I started wrapping up by saying, Are you familiar with the difference between making a special versus general appearance in court?

The male attorney responds with, Do you do seminars?

I respond with a drawn out, Not yet.

Then I said, The only reason I am out here today is because my sister is being held without consent and jurisdiction in the jail, and they are lucky it isnt me in there because I know my rights! And just so you know, I am going to be out here giving out my book and talking to people every day until my sister is free.

And I notice the first activity from the female attorney she is frantically texting someone on her iPhone

I begin to walk away but first, I ask the male attorney if he would like a copy, and then I give him my last book that I brought. We need to educate even them, and all the other public servants of their proper place and how they are working for us, not the other way around.

My sister was released from custody an hour later, and I realize that perhaps that female attorney that remained silent was the one with seniority from the district attorneys office (what other attorneys would be on recess in their playground in front of the courthouse?), and I dont know for sure, but I think I may have had something to do with my sisters expedited release.

My sister was initially accused and charged with assault, but like magic, now has no resulting court dates, no release agreement, never even saw a judge, no fines, probation, or ANY OTHER RESULT. The case just disappeared. Smart girl even got officer Lapine of the Hillsboro City Police Department in Oregon to agree to a $50,000 contract to see her identification.

If you havent guessed already, you NEED TO READ MY BOOK! I made the District Attorney SPEECHLESS in less than 4 questions. Dont you want or even NEED this power as well? Reclaim your power! Get your hands on the book now! ONLY at

I have to say that the $25 I paid for this book was the best money I ever spent! Carrie Bradshaw

Click here to purchase "FREEDOM from GOVERNMENT; How to Reclaim Your Power" NOW!

Want to learn more? (So much more you will be BLOWN AWAY!) Get your hands on a copy of the book!

Not to mention all the other tools, tags, stickers, spygear, and more for you to reclaim your inherent power and natural rights. Visit today!

Keywords: jurisdiction, authority, Oregon, district, attorney, Washington, county, Oregon, police, court, sheriff, deputy, certificate, money, debt, constitution, power, inherent, natural, law, legal, good morning America, hunger games

SOURCE: You too can make the District Attorney speechless in under 4 questions! Originally posted March, 2013.