Support 911Blogger


Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review by Glenn Greenwald

 www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/bagram/index.html 

 

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

Reuters/Jonathon Burch
A detainee holding cell is pictured at the detention centre at the U.S. Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul.

(updated below - Update II)

Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court.  Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole."  In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.  Since then, detainees havewon 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.

Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned.  Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (underBoumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind.  In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged.  One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, asThe New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."

But last April, John Bates, the Bush-43-appointed, right-wing judge overseeing the case, rejected the Bush/Obama position and held thatBoumediene applies to detainees picked up outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram.  I reviewed that ruling here, in which Judge Bates explained that the Bagram detainees are "virtually identical to the detainees inBoumediene," and that the Constitutional issue was exactly the same:  namely,"the concern that the President could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."  

But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss.  They quickly appealed Judge Bates' ruling.  As the NYT put it about that appeal:  "The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort tomaintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight."  Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).

So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind.  When the Boumedienedecision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."  ButObama hailed it as "a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," and he praised the Court for "rejectinga false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."  Even worse, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:   

As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer.  But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe. 

Can you smell the hypocrisy?  How could anyone miss its pungent, suffocating odor?  Apparently, what Obama called "a legal black hole at Guantanamo" is a heinous injustice, but "a legal black hole at Bagram" is the Embodiment of Hope.  And evidently, Obama would only feel "terror" if his child were abducted and taken to Guantanamo and imprisoned "without even getting one chance to ask why and prove their innocence."  But if the very same child were instead taken to Bagram and treated exactly the same way, that would be called Justice -- or, to use his jargon, Pragmatism.  And what kind of person hails a Supreme Court decision as "protecting our core values" -- as Obama said ofBoumediene -- only to then turn around and make a complete mockery of that ruling by insisting that the Cherished, Sacred Rights it recognized are purely a function of where the President orders a detainee-carrying military plane to land?  

Independently, what happened to Obama's eloquent insistence that "restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer; in fact, recent evidence shows it is probablymaking us less safe"?  How does our policy of invading Afghanistan and then putting people at Bagram with no charges of any kind dispose people in that country, and the broader Muslim world, to the United States?  If a country invaded the U.S. and set up prisons where Americans from around the world where detained indefinitely and denied all rights to have their detention reviewed, how would it dispose you to the country which was doing that?

One other point:  this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be.  If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General's office that argued the administration's position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed.  More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama's executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat.  Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?

This is what Barack Obama has done to the habeas clause of the Constitution:  if you are in Thailand (as one of the petitioners in this case was) and the U.S. abducts you and flies you to Guantanamo, then you have the right to have a federal court determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold you.  If, however, President Obama orders that you be taken to from Thailand to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then you will have no rights of any kind, and he can order you detained there indefinitely without any right to a habeas review.  That type of change is so very inspiring -- almost an exact replica of his vow to close Guantanamo . . . all in order to move its core attributes (including indefinite detention) a few thousand miles North to Thompson, Illinois.  

Real estate agents have long emphasized "location, location, location" as the all-determining market factor.  Before we elected this Constitutional Scholar as Commander-in-Chief, who knew that this platitude also shaped our entire Constitution? 

UPDATE:  Law Professor Steve Vladeck has more on the ruling, including "the perverse incentive that today's decision supports," as predicted by Justice Scalia in his Boumediene dissent:  namely, that a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention.  Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying.  Vladeck also explains why the appellate court's caveat -- that overt government manipulation to evade habeas rights (i.e., shipping them to a war zone with the specific intent of avoiding Boumediene) might alter the calculus -- is rather meaningless. 

UPDATE II:  Guest-hosting for Rachel Maddow last night, Chris Hayes talked with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights about the Bagram ruling and Obama's hypocrisy on these issues, and it was quite good, including a video clip of the 2006 Obama speech I excerpted above: 

 

 

Obama gains power to violate right of ...

Obama cannot be granted the right to violate the right of habeas review. Habeas review is a human right. At most Obama can be granted the power to violate that right.

This entire war on(sic) terror is an Orwellian nightmare. They have invented a new category of conduct that is not treated as criminal. A terrorist is not, in the view if these criminal tyrants, a criminal. A terrorist is an untermensch. Mere accusation or stated suspicion is enough to land one in that category. After being so categorized, the victim is no longer accorded basic human rights.

This is so clear, and so fundamental that I don't see how people don't see it.

Magna Carta, NYT 5/21/10

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/arts/design/22magna.html
This (habeas corpus) is really the litmus test for all of us, as far as basic rights go. This article on the Magna Carta (1215 AD) from the NYTs gives a fair history of this vital document and its implications.

The consistencies between Bush and Obama policies.....

tell me that the shadow government is likely pulling all the strings. Obama is a constitutional scholar? He is a tool of the PTB. They say jump. He says, "How High?"

If you don't know how our 'government' is set up, then...

If you don't know how our 'government' is set up, then you can't put all of these 'acts', 'codes', 'laws', 'rules', 'regulations', etc. into context. The current 'government' is actually a corporation called the UNITED STATES and all pertinent departments are subsidiary corporations and all the states are corporations, as well as the cities, counties, courts, etc. Beside the true United States of America Republic, a parallel structure of corporations has been set up to steal our liberties and our wealth. The true United States of America has been left hollow and empty like the Titanic at the bottom of the ocean, and we are all treated as slaves aboard the enemy ship. Each one of us has the ability to rise above the fray and take more control, but it's going to take a lot of retraining and re-education to undo all the lies that completely engulf us. As someone who has already begun this process of freeing myself from the 'matrix', let me tell you, it's worth the effort.

Critical History

On the Fourth of July 1776,

the American states were united at war with Great Britain and had just declared their Independance. But what did it mean? What does it mean now? - Independence. This nation acted like one of England's colonies for hundreds of years and in that time had grown to become one of Great Britain's most productive resources. Then the French American War began and England came to defend the "colonists" incurring great debts and finally winning the war. Britain decided that it needed to keep troops here even though it did not have sufficient forts and that it could not afford to build such forts; therefore they decided to compel the people here to quarter the British troops in their homes with room and board; for protection of such troops they confiscated the peoples guns; the King also created a sales tax. The rights of the colonists became so abused that it became necessary to stand against Great Britain's abuse over, "the last straw" — though most of the sales taxes were dropped, on a few key imported items like tea and shugar they went from from 3% to 6%. In response, rather than paying the increased tax, some of the colonists had a party (the Boston Tea Party) and threw a load of tea into the harbor; while others formed the Declaration of Independence and went to war.

When the War was over they formed a new foundational document, The Articles of Confederation, that document recognized this nation as a nation made up of independent sovereign United States, and gave the name "The United States of America" to the new government. Many of the people of this new nation felt that it was wrong to leave England. Sure there were rights violations but those were livable and their future was a certainty as an English Colony. Now that they were on their own nothing at all was sure.

Over the next ten years conditions in this country continually got worse. The individual States gave little regard to any other State and paid nearly no attention at all to the central government. After ten years of independence from Great Britain conditions were far worse than they had ever been under Great Britain's rule and protection. Many wanted government officials to go back to Great Britain and beg the King to take us back, and they almost did.

"To form a more perfect Union"

That movement was considered too severe to take without first attempting to resolve the problems of this new nation by the sitting of what later became known as the Constitutional Convention. Each of the Sovereign States gave authority to (deputized) a few men to form a college to review and reform the present form of government and to eliminate the errors made in thier first attempt at the Articles of Confederation. In other words those few men were collectively entrusted with the peoples' sovereign authority to reform the government. The Deputies created a Trust Indenture. Though some people say the Indenture had no title, because there was no Title written in bold letters at its head, its title, "The Constitution for the United States of America", was given in its Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for 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."It containes VII Articles, concluding with the signatures of the twelve States' Deputies present at the convention. Once agreed to on, September 17th, 1787 and signed by the Deputies, the Trust was formed. This Indenture, (Constitution) with the intent and authority of the sovereign people, created a "Constitutional Republic" form of government in trust. Though the Deputies were empowered to reform the government to more perfectly align it with the will of the people, the States had not fully expected that their sovereignty and control over the land would be removed, wherefore the Deputies resolved to take the Trust back to the individual States for their respective ratification. The States conditionally refused ratification until limits were placed upon the new government that would secure man's God given inherent rights.

Remember, under the Articles of Confederation, these individual States were recognized as individually Sovereign States, which was the problem with the Articles of Confederation, there was no accountability or control over the individual States. Without accountability whoever was in power simply ignored the central government and moved forward literally however they saw fit (in violation of individual rights, or not). In essence, they were each absolutely powerful kingdoms. It was obvious that if something wasn't done to unite the Union of States as, "United States" they would be destroyed from within or without. So when offered the Trust Indenture, the individual sovereign States' leaders could see that they would no longer be sovereign if they accepted the Trust, and they would be destroyed if they didn't accept it.

Not much of a choice, but the war with England ended only a little over ten years earlier and they didn't want to go back, so they demanded that if they were to give up their sovereignty, the people's rights must be preserved from the central government. Thus they conditionally refused the Trust until the insisted on "Bill of Rights" were added. Therefore, the Trust document was first created to create a Trust known as the "United States". The Trust created a government controlled by the Trust. Government officials were set up within the Trust as Trustees with specific defined responsibilities and functions. The People were set up as the beneficiaries of the Trust and when any government official takes office he/she is required to swear an oath of allegiance [make a contract with the people to uphold the Constitution]. Remember, at this point the government has already been created in trust, by the signed Constitution.

As yet the Trust has nobody sitting in the offices of government, however, the States are not willing to support the Trust and authorize its officers to function with control over them unless the people's rights and the State's rights are secured. The Conventioneers went back to work to draft the requested, Bill of Rights, which were later provided as the First Ten Amendments to the, Constitution of the United States of America, a document that was created to bind officers in an Oath to uphold the Trust of the people and securing the peoples rights.

Then the Trust, the Constitution for the United States of America (still signed and unchanged from its original version as first presented to the states), along with the "Bill of Rights" as the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, were returned to the individual States and were ratified by each of those States and returned to the Constitutional Convention where the new government was made effective and put in operation on or after, December 15th, 1791, the "Effective date of the Constitution which was then rewritten with the Title, The Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights.

Now let's go back and again review the documents created in the process by name. (Names are about to become very important when we go to the next step and begin to follow the money.)

Here's what happened step by step.

First: There was the Trust, it had no named Title but within its own first paragraph it named itself the, "Constitution for the United States of America". Remember this document is a Trust document; It created a Trust called the "United States of America". This document was accepted and signed by all of the Conventioneers. The signed Trust document (Constitution) created a government. There was nobody sitting in the seats of that government, and there wouldn't be until such time as the individual States ratified the Constitution and the Conventioneers appointed people into the offices.

Second: The Trust was sent out for ratification of the individual States.

Third: The individual States declined for a conditional reason which when resolved would make the Trust acceptable.

Fourth: The Constitutional Convention again sat and generated the Bill of Rights (a set of supreme laws that limit government). The wording of the Bill recognized it as "Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America". Presupposing that the Constitution [Trust] already exists. The Constitution was a trust document that created a republican form of government in trust of, by, and for the people. Note: They did not regenerate the Constitution it was already signed and accepted by each of the State's representatives as the Trust that it is.

Fifth: The individual States were given the Constitution as before along with the new "Bill of Rights" and all accepted and ratified the documents.

Sixth: With the ratification of the Trust and its "Bill of Rights", the government was accepted as formed, in trust, yet still, there were no officers in the seats of the government. [It's very important for us to notice this status of the government.**]

Seventh The Constitutional Convention again sat to perform their final acts as the Creator of the Trust. They appointed officials to sit in the primary seats of the newly formed Constitutional Republic and serve until an election was held.

Eighth: Those officials now appointed could not take office until they each individually first swore an Oath of Office stating they would uphold the, Constitution of the United States of America. Again please note the name used in the Bill of Rights and now used for this "contract" by Oath to uphold the: Constitution of the United States of America, not, "for the united", but "of the United". Note: It's important to note here that we are indeed talking about two different documents. The First, the, Constitution for the United States of America, is a Trust and the Second, the, Constitution of the United States of America, is a contract between the officers of government and the beneficiaries of the Trust.

After the Constitution was in place, and elections were held ratifying George Washington as President things went fairly well until the Civil War. By 1868 the war was over and the government had a gigantic problem. Until that time Congressmen were equally, collectively and severably liable for the acts of government. It was much like a General Partnership.

In the wake of the war martial law was necessarily enforced in the South and carpetbaggers were sent down to "help adjust property ownership problems" after the war. Many great atrocities were performed. Vulnerability to lawsuit was unbearable. It was considered that, in the interest of better handling the business interests and needs of government, the government should form a corporation.

Corp. USA.

The United States of America's Congress formed a private corporation named, "The District of Columbia" (Corp. USA) in, The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. The purpose of this corporation was to carry out the business needs of the government under the martial law aftermath of the Civil War. It trademarked the names: "United States Government", "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America". The corporation was not well received by the people and by the end of 1873, it was nearly defunct.

The corporation was reorganized in 1878 along with its trademarks. Corp. USA began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. They continued to issue these bonds until by 1912 there were more bonds due than there was money in the Treasury to pay for the bonds.

Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn't come up with the money due, its owner was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either and to satisfy the obligations the seven families seized the Treasury with all of its possessions.

By 1913 there was still no money for operating the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn't do something the people would revolt against them, so Corp. U.S. went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them.

The Federal Reserve Bank

The heads of those families made arrangements and provisions to loan the money to Corp. U.S. and in 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was formed and agreed to fund Corp. U.S. in their endeavors. Such an action would have been a gigantic violation of law but there wasn't any problem with a corporation doing such.

The real problem is in the name. How does one tell the difference between the corporation named, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", and the government of the United States of America? What's worse, how do you tell the difference between the "United States" [a Trust and the body of government that represents the Trust, as Trustees], and the "United States" a trademark name for, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT"? The answer is simple, you can't unless you know the context of what's being done.

The problem gets even larger when you take into consideration the fact that the officers of government are also the officers of the corporation. They were simultaneously appointed or elected into their offices, both in the corporation and in the government at the same time. In virtually every way the name of their offices and their responsibilities as corporate officials and as government officers were coincidental.

There was no conflict in interest because the corporations purpose was to fulfill the business needs of the government. We don't need to go into all of the details and ramifications of the arrangements between Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank. The fact of the matter is: Where the government couldn't lawfully be involved with the Federal Reserve Bank, the corporation can be.

Having recognized the Federal Reserve link with Corp. U.S., let's again jump forward through history. For the purposes of this article, we're going to jump right over the Trading with Enemies Act of 1917 and the Emergency War Powers Act of 1933. Though those Acts are very important in relation to the War we're involved in today, they won't affect the outcome of this presentation of history, and in this presentation we want to stick with the money and Corp. U.S.

The UN, IMF, & World Bank

So we jump from 1913 and the setting of the Federal Reserve Bank as the financier of Corp. U.S. to 1944 and WW2. The war was winding down and a new player enters the scene - The United Nations and their creations "The International Monetary Fund" (IMF), and "The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development" (World Bank). Make sure you're sitting down for this one.

We turn now to United States Code (USC) Title 22 ¤ 286 and read the following: "¤ 286. Acceptance of membership by the United States in International Monetary Fund. "The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. (July 31, 1945, ch 339, ¤ 2, 59 Stat. 512.) Short titles: É May be cited as the 'Bretton Woods Agreements Act'. "Other provisions: Par value modification. For the Congressional direction that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the value in terms of gold of the Inter-American Development Bank's holdings of United States dollars following the establishment of a par value of the dollar at $38 for a fine troy ounce of gold pursuant to the Par Value Modification Act and for the authorization of the appropriations necessary to provide such maintenance of value, see 31 USC ¤ 449a."

The Quit Claim Deed

The act further transfers the assets of the United States Treasury to the IMF by stating words to the effect that: 'the United States Treasury is now the Individual Drawing account of the IMF'

Think about it. "The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the the IMF" The President is authorized by whom? Congress? Well, even if Congress did authorize it where did they get the authority to so do? Certainly not from the Constitution, and Congress can't lawfully do anything the Constitution doesn't authorize them to do. The Constitution plainly states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ninth amendment; and, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," Tenth Amendment.

Further, this joining in the IMF is obviously an international agreement; and, any good dictionary will define, "an agreement between nations" as a, "Treaty". The Constitution is very specific on how treaties are to be engaged in with this nation - First, the President signs the treaty; and Second, the Senate ratifies his signature with a two-thirds majority vote. That didn't happen here. So if the right wasn't given in the Constitution, Congress can't take it and give it to the President.

This act states that Authorization came from the UN instead of from Congress, "provided for "as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations" There was no treaty with the UN until December 20, 1945, five months later, so the UN could not exercise its treaty with Corp. US

Now, hold on a second here. There are just plain too many things going on here that can't be. Too many conflicts. Even in a corrupt government they'd never get away with it.

I was watching Star Trek one time when Spock explained a logical solution to an identity problem like this, 'When you examine the solutions and you discover what cannot be, the solution can only be whatever is left.'

That's the problem here, in Law it cannot be what it seems to be. The United States of America cannot be a member in the IMF, and the Treasury of the United States of America cannot be turned over to a foreign bank's control. The only thing left is they must be talking about Corp. USA which is only a corporation and I can find nothing that says a corporation cannot quit claim deed itself to another owner.

Now think about it. And, this time instead of thinking the government did it [because they couldn't have], think about the Corporation, OK. In that case where it says, "The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States", "United States" as used here can only mean be the trademark name for the corporation known as, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT" in other words the corporation formed in 1878, and not the government.

Want further confirmation? OK. In the "Other provisions:" section it talks about, "the Secretary of Treasury", which is an officer of the corporation only. That position does not exist in the national government. The relatively equivalent position in national government is, "the Treasurer of the United States of America".

As a matter of fact when you review the whole document, Title 22 ¤ 286, and the underlying "Bretton Woods Agreement", you'll find these elements.

One: Congress of the United States of America passes the Bretton Woods Agreement and statutizes a portion of it as Title 22 ¤ 286.

Two: In the agreement, Congress Grants to the IMF the "United States Treasury" as, "The individual drawing account" for the IMF.

Three: "The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall serve as a governor of the Bank" USC 22 ¤ 286a.

The person the President chose as Governor of the Bank and IMF is the Secretary of the Treasury. The elements of a Quit Claim Deed are: there must be a Grantor, a Grantee, and assets or rights granted. In this case we have a Corporation known as, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", trademark names, United States, US, USA, America, etc. Its assets are its Treasury (The United States Treasury), and its purpose is to carry out the business needs of the national government of United States of America. The owner of said Corporation was the United States of America, the nation.

The Treasury of the corporation was Granted by Grantor, the government of the United States of America (Congress and the President) to the Grantee, the IMF. Therefore USC Title 22 ¤ 286 is a Quit Claim Deed of the Corporation known as, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", from The United States of America and to the IMF which is owned and controlled by the United Nations.

Upon review of these actions, as Spock would say, that is the only solution left when you remove all other options.

No Elections since 1944

Up to the point of the quit claim deed, there was allegedly no conflict in interests between Corp. USA and its owner the national government of the United States of America, but after the quit claim deed, with the new owner being foreign and having foreign interests, there is a gigantic conflict in interests. Enter the problem nobody seemed to notice.

The Elections of the President of the United States of America and its Congress etc. had for many years been completely managed by the Secretary of State's office. The Secretary of State is purely a Corp. USA position, therefore when the Secretary of State held the election of those officers in 1944 (after the quit claim deed) that election could only have been for the Corp. USA offices due to the conflict in interests created by the corporations new ownership, and those corporate offices, even though they have the same names as the government offices, could no longer sit in a dual role office.

Separate elections must be held, but they weren't. They still aren't. Therefore there was no election of officers of the government of the United States of America. And all of America was none the wiser. The government was still there and the Constitution was still alive and well and living in Washington D. C. but once again** there was nobody sitting in the seats of the officers of government. Just like it was when the founding fathers signed the Constitution but the States had not ratified it, the government existed but nobody's home. There hasn't been an Election since, and there won't be one until America once again wakes up. This is fantastic, I know, but look at the facts! This is the only solution that makes sense. Not only that but there are piles of evidence that prove these facts and conclusions are accurate.

The States join Corp. USA

This started around 1962 and condoned through 1968. The corporation went to the States and pointed out to them that their own Constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or loans, bonds, etc., and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve Notes. If the people were aware of this you can imagine them painting a picture similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the people held a sword to the Kings head and said sign or we'll get a new king. The king signed, and so did the States.

One by one, they signed their Corporations over as sub-corps. to Corp. USA. Colorado rewrote Colorado's Constitution, Revised the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and enacted CRS Title 24 as the "Administrative Organization Act of 1968" restructuring its laws in 1968. Said Title 24 is the new corporate charter for, "THE STATE OF COLORADO" which is a United States corporation (Corp. USA possession).

By 1968 all of the individual States had done the same thing. The California Republic, became "THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA". The Texas Republic became "THE STATE OF TEXAS". The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, became "THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA". Each and every state changed the name of their state to "THE STATE OF _______", by 1968.

Discovery

By 1994, the people of Colorado discovered historical evidences that proved these facts and showed them how to elect an original jurisdiction Governor. Even though the corporation known as The State of Colorado elected their corporate Governor, the electors elected a different Governor for their original jurisdiction State's government. Those two Governor's served full four year terms at the same time, one for the private corporation known as The State of Colorado, the other for the original jurisdiction state Republic known simply as Colorado. That was the beginning. Since that time, 24 States have seated original jurisdiction Governors, and those Governor's have seated original jurisdiction national Senators.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We plan to re-seat the entire original jurisdiction national government and each of the State's original jurisdiction governments. This effort takes an immense amount of work.

Where Are You, Do You Know?

Time to take a look at that ship again. Like a ship at sea, in order to plot a course, you need to know: who you are, where you are, where you're going, and which way the wind is blowing.

Who Are You? Answer: According to national foundational law (King James version of the Bible), God created man(kind) in his own image and gave man agency (free will), to act in accord with his own conscience. At the end of the revolutionary war, King George of England and the Pope recognized that the people of this nation were individually sovereign in accord with that God given inherent right to the agency of man. Nothing has changed that nature of mankind to this day. That's who you are, a sovereign child of God, with the offering of an eternal covenant that if you will multiply replenish and subdue the earth for the purpose of building up God's Kingdom on this earth and remain not of this world, He will grant you your inheritance.

Where Are You? Answer: You're living in a nation where the chosen form of government is a Constitutional Republic, and where, historically, no elections of government officials have been held at least since 1944, and where a private corporation, known as the United States, owned by a foreign power (the International Monetary Fund), is responsible for providing the business needs of the government, which government again is alive and well and living in Washington, D.C.-there just are few officers of government sitting in the seats the Constitution provides, and where the corporation that most people seem to think is government is busy terrorizing the populace and paying for their acts with tax dollars, making all that participate in that program a party to their terrorism.

Where Are You Going? Answer: That is entirely up to you. We are supporting the current constitutional Republic government re-seating efforts and are helping the people to secure their assets and possessions by providing competent self controlled asset protection systems in the manner of Kings. The question remains,
"What are you going to do?"

Which Way Is The Wind Blowing? Answer: The foreign owned private corporation known as the United States is usurping control over the people by contract, breaking up families ironically through the use of taxation, the D.A.R.E. program and "parens patria", public education, and the media. With the proceeds of their control they are terrorizing the world. They inspire fictional police power to force their implied control over the people and to separate the people from their freedom, privacy and property. So the wind blows in our nation today. Example, In 1993, over 53,000 families were removed from their farms, homes, and land under the guise of the Endangered Species Act, and/or under the Wetlands Act. In eviction cases in Colorado, the Sheriffs Offices never use warrants to gain access to the land, they use a "Color of Law" "Writ of Restitution" instead and then say they are breaking and entering in good faith on the specious authority of the court ordered writ. On April 19th we find the anniversary of the Ruby Ridge, Idaho massacre, the Seventh-Day Adventist, Branch Davidian, Waco, Texas massacre, the first World Trade Center bombing (a massacre of 1000 people) and the Mura Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma massacre. Most recently there were the Airplane crashes into the WTC and the alleged Airplane crash (with no evidence of any aircraft at all) into the Pentagon (all of which airplanes had "Hijack proof" ground based ability to turn off all cockpit control systems in favor of ground control systems that could safely land any of the suspected hijacked planes) (Also, what happened to the alleged automated defense system that protects the air space over Washington, D.C.?) Are these last examples more examples of Corp US terrorism on our own people. Was it all simply a support building tactic for authorizing more global terrorism? We may never know the truth, but, we can tell which way the wind is blowing.