Defining the Cause
From a Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: le·gal·ize
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: -ized ; -iz·ing
: to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to — le·gal·i·za·tion noun — le·gal·iz·er noun
To validate or sanction their authority to continue to Prohibit this plant…..
Is this what you want?
Main Entry: re·peal
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Anglo-French repeler , from Old French, from re- back + apeler to appeal, call, from Latin appellare to address, entreat, call by name
: to rescind or annul by authoritative act; especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment repeal ing statutes in light of a recent Supreme Court decision> — repeal noun
or is this what you want?
To Nullify, Revoke any authority over this plant and your rights to utilize…
This word, derived from the French lecher, is nearly synonymous with negligence.
2. In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice, and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which it is discretionary and not compulsory in the court to afford. In courts of equity, also delay will generally prejudice. 1 Chit. Pr. 786, and the cases there cited; 8 Com. Dig. 684; 6 Johns. Ch. R. 360.
3. But laches may be excused from, ignorance of the party’s rights; 2 Mer. R. 362; 2 Ball & Beat. 104; from the obscurity of the transaction; 2 Sch. & Lef. 487; by the pendancy of a suit; 1 Sch. & Lef. 413; and where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, coverture, infancy, and the like. And no laches can be imputed to the public. 4 Mass. Rep. 522; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 291; 4 Hen. & Munf. 57; 1 Penna. R. 476. Vide 1 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 436; 2 Id. 170; Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t.; 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3911.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
laches n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of “legal ambush.” Examples: knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of “affirmative defenses” in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the “statute of limitations” which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.).
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
A defense to an equitable action, that bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s undue delay in seeking relief.
Laches is a defense to a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks equitable relief. Cases in Equity are distinguished from cases at law by the type of remedy, or judicial relief, sought by the plaintiff. Generally, law cases involve a problem that can be solved by the payment of monetary damages. Equity cases involve remedies directed by the court against a party.
Types of equitable relief include Injunction, where the court orders a party to do or not to do something; declaratory relief, where the court declares the rights of the two parties to a controversy; and accounting, where the court orders a detailed written statement of money owed, paid, and held. Courts have complete discretion in equity, and weigh equitable principles against the facts of the case to determine whether relief is warranted.
The rules of equity are built on a series of legal maxims, which serve as broad statements of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident. The basis of equity is contained in the Maxim “Equity will not suffer an injustice.” Other maxims present reasons for not granting equitable relief. Laches is one such defense.
Laches is based on the legal maxim “Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.” Laches recognizes that a party to an action can lose evidence, witnesses, and a fair chance to defend himself or herself after the passage of time from the date the wrong was committed. If the defendant can show disadvantages because for a long time he or she relied on the fact that no lawsuit would be started, then the case should be dismissed in the interests of justice.
The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. Cases in law are governed by statutes of limitations, which are laws that determine how long a person has to file a lawsuit before the right to sue expires. Different types of injuries (e.g., tort and contract) have different time periods in which to file a lawsuit. Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations. However, unlike statutes of limitations, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief.
Real estate boundary disputes are resolved in equity and may involve laches. For instance, if a person starts to build a garage that extends beyond the boundary line and into a neighbor’s property, and the neighbor immediately files a suit in equity and asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the construction, the neighbor will likely prevail. On the other hand, if the neighbor observes the construction of the garage on her property and does not file suit until the garage is completed, the defendant may plead laches, arguing that the neighbor had ample time to protect her property rights before the construction was completed, and the court may find it unfair to order that the garage be torn down.
The laches defense, like most of equity law, is a general concept containing many variations on the maxim. Phrases used to describe laches include “delay that works to the disadvantage of another,” “inexcusable delay coupled with prejudice to the party raising the defense,” “failure to assert rights,” “lack of diligence,” and “neglect or omission to assert a right.”
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Nullify – Nullification?
verb abolish, abrogate, ad inritum redigere, annul, cancel, cast aside, counteract, countermand, declare null and void, deprive of efficacy, deprive of legal force, disannul, dissolve, invalidate, make useless, make valueless, make void, negate, neutralize, obliterate, offset, override, overrule, overturn, quash, recall, recant, render invalid, renege, repeal, repudiate, rescind, retract, reverse, revoke, suspend, vacate, vitiate, void
See also: abate, abolish, abrogate, adeem, alleviate, annul, balk, cancel, contravene, counteract, defeat, destroy, disable, disavow, discharge, disinherit, disown, disprove, dissolve, eliminate, eradicate, expunge, extinguish, extirpate, frustrate, invalidate, kill, negate, neutralize, obliterate, override, overrule, overthrow, quash, recall, recant, renege, repeal, repudiate, rescind, revoke, supersede, terminate, vacate, vitiate, void, withdraw
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.
The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the “triers of fact,” while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict. The most widely accepted understanding of jury nullification by the courts is one that acknowledges the power but not the right of a juror or jury to nullify the law. Jury nullification is most often, although rarely, exercised in criminal trials but technically is applicable to civil trials as well, where it is subject to civil procedural remedies such as the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
In criminal cases, however, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes final a jury trial that results in an acquittal, and it guarantees freedom from Double Jeopardy. This gives juries an inherent power to follow their own consciences in reaching a verdict, notwithstanding jury instructions or charges to the contrary.
v. to annul or set aside. In law, a motion to quash asks the judge for an order setting aside or nullifying an action, such as “quashing” service of a summons when the wrong person was served.
To abrogate, annul, avoid, or cancel a contract; particularly, nullifying a contract by the act of a party. See Powell v. Linde Co., 29 Misc. Rep. 419, GO N. Y. Supp. 1044 ; Ilurst v. Trow Printing Co., 2 Misc. Rep. 3G1, 22 N. Y. Supp. 371.
(Black’s Law Dictionary)
Degree of unreasonableness and unfairness of a contract or deal prompting a court to modify or nullify it.
Legal principle where a court will modify or nullify conditions of contract placing one party at the other’s mercy.
That which is null and completely without legal force or binding effect.
The term void has a precise meaning that has sometimes been confused with the more liberal term voidable. Something that is voidable may be avoided or declared void by one or more of the parties, but such an agreement is not void per se.
A void contract is not a contract at all because the parties are not, and cannot be, bound by its terms. Therefore, no action can be maintained for breach of a void contract, and it cannot be made valid by ratification. Because it is nugatory, a void contract need not be rescinded or otherwise declared invalid in a court of law.
A void marriage is one that is invalid from its inception. In contrast to a voidable marriage, the parties to a void marriage may not ratify the union by living together as Husband and Wife. No Divorce or Annulment is required. Nevertheless, parties frequently do seek, and are permitted to seek, such a decree in order to remove any doubt about the validity of the marriage. Unlike a voidable marriage, a void marriage can be challenged even after the death of one or both parties.
In most jurisdictions a bigamous marriage, one involving a person who has a living spouse from an undissolved prior marriage, is void from the outset. In addition, statutes typically prohibit marriage between an ancestor and descendant; between a brother and a sister (whether related by whole blood, half blood, or Adoption); and between an uncle and niece or aunt and nephew.
A judgment entered by a court is void if a court lacks jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter of a lawsuit. A void judgment may be entirely disregarded without a judicial declaration that the judgment is void and differs from an erroneous, irregular, or voidable judgment. In practice, however, an attack on a void judgment is commonly used to make the judgment’s flaw a matter of public record.
A law is considered void on its face if its meaning is so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to the statute’s application (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 2d 322 ). due process requires that citizens receive fair notice of what sort of conduct to avoid. For example, a Cincinnati, Ohio, city ordinance made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and conduct themselves in a manner that was annoying to passersby. A conviction carried the possibility of a $50 fine and between one and thirty days imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions of several persons found guilty of violating the ordinance after a demonstration and picketing (Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 ). The Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it subjected citizens to an unascertainable standard. Stating that “conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others,” the Court said that the ordinance left citizens to guess at the proper conduct required. The Court noted that the city could lawfully prohibit persons from blocking the sidewalks, littering, obstructing traffic, committing assaults, or engaging in other types of undesirable behavior through “ordinances directed with reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited.”
1. To nullify a contract by means of mutual agreement. 2. To officially abolish a law.
Maxim of law?
Nature and Natures God is the law and is what gives life to man and his “Rulers” and no legislative rule of a society can prohibit the very thing that gives it life. Legislative “rules” only have force of law, and no rule can take from the very law that gives it force.
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 256:
“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”
Maxims were originally quoted in Latin, and many of the Latin phrases continue to be familiar to lawyers in the early 2000s. The maxims were not written down in an organized code or enacted by legislatures, but they have been handed down through generations of judges. As a result, the wording of a maxim may vary from case to case. For example, it is a general rule that equity does not aid a party at fault. This maxim has been variously expressed:
No one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault.
Equity does not relieve a person of the consequences of his or her own carelessness.
A court of equity will not assist a person in extricating himself or herself from the circumstances that he or she has created.
Equity will not grant relief from a self-created hardship.
The principles of equity and justice are universal in the common-law courts of the world. They are flexible principles aimed at achieving justice for both sides in each case. No maxim is ever absolute, but all of the principles must be weighed and fitted to the facts of an individual controversy. A rule does not apply when it would produce an unfair result. A party cannot insist that a strict technicality be enforced in his or her favor when it would create an injustice because equity will instead balance the interests of the different parties and the convenience of the public.
COMMON LAW vs
Chapter Ten defined common law and indicated that common law is “the law of the land.” In contrast, legislated or statutory law – like the laws of Congress – are written mostly by attorneys to further their own self-interest or to favor special-interest groups with big bucks.
It is possible for an individual or company to operate according to the basic principles of freedom inherent in human nature. Most fundamentally, these are the rights to own property and to engage in voluntary exchange. These are also basic common law rights, and the two basic principles of Voluntary Capitalism. These principles are in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as intended by our Founding Fathers. The spirit of Voluntary Capitalism was expressed in the famous Supreme Court case cited in Chapter Two:
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” The individual’s right to contract is unlimited and no State may interfere with that right.
Very few Americans know that they have a fundamental choice: To live their lives and conduct their businesses under common-law jurisdiction or under statutory jurisdiction. Common Law is the law of the land, the law of the Constitution. Statutory law is legislated law.
The IRS makes this distinction between the two kinds of law:
“1. Common law comprises the body of principles and rules of action relating to government and security of persons and property which derive their authority solely from usages and customs or from judgments and decrees of courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs.
2. Statutory law refers to laws enacted and established by a legislative body.” IRS Manual, page 5041.1 Section 222.1.
Much of the original U.S. common law has been codified in a single Federal statute, the Uniform Commercial Code.
“The Code is complementary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code.” UCC 1-103.6.
The UCC provides the mechanism for making the choice between common law jurisdiction and statutory jurisdiction. It also states that the failure to make the choice results in the loss of common law rights.
“When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” UCC 1-207.9.
“The Sufficiency of the Reservation – Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as “without prejudice.”” UCC 1-207.4.
The specific method for reserving your common law rights – for choosing to operate under common law jurisdiction – is to write below your signature “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.” You could use this phrase on your driver’s licence, on bank signature cards, and on contracts.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
“Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
Very few Americans (including lawyers) know that federal legislative and territorial jurisdiction is very limited. It is limited to the ten square miles of Washington, DC, certain military bases where States have ceded jurisdiction, certain territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam, and certain guano islands.
This information comes from a 29-page paper by Attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. The Supreme Court has stated:
“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Caha v. U.S., 142 U.S., at 215 (1894).
Becraft cites twenty court cases confirming the territorial limitation of federal jurisdiction, including:
U.S. v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir., 1975) – holding federal wiretap laws as territorial.
Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C. Cir., 1973) – holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial.
Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F. Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) – holding securities act as territorial.
GENERAL CASE LAW ON JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910.
“It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor.” U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d, at 481 (5th Cir., 1974).
“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
“Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.
“The United States is entirely a creature of the Federal Constitution, its power and authority has no other source and it can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“The rights and liberties of the citizens of the United States are not protected by custom and tradition alone, they are preserved from the encroachments of government by express/enumerated provisions of the Federal Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“The prohibitions of the Federal Constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and the senate combined.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
“Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution.” Eisner v. McComber, 252 U.S. 189 at 207.
Readers interested in finding out more about the practical application of these principles should contact Free America Institute for further information.
Copyright © 1992 Free America Institute ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
I QUOTE, “the constitution gives all people equal rights not just a certain group of people” origin unknown
ACTUALLY THIS IS A NON TRUTH!
When Legally defining our Constitution we find…
IMMIGRATION, SLAVERY, WAR, OUR NATIONAL WAR DEBT, INCORPORATION of GOVERNMENT = CORPORATE GOVERMENT, CONGRESS, SOCIAL SECURITY, the I.R.S., the FEDERAL RESERVE and the NATION’S STOCK MARKET have in fact attempted to change all these good intentions, and effectively have, for the most part. In our courts, system, jails, prisons, government, education, schools, understanding, reality,…
Many believe they are OPERATING FRAUDULENTLY in UNCONSTITUTIONAL TYRANNY today.
BY NOT FULLY INFORMING or EDUCATING “WE the PEOPLE” to the true FACTS.
Important facts like, that through claiming their AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP = CONTRACTING with CORPORATE AMERICA and/or by voluntarily CONTRACTING with them, through SOCIAL SECURITY, IMMIGRATION, the IRS,… = INCORPORATION. That they are no longer considered an INDEPENDENT or SOVEREIGN citizen.
That CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS are TRADED and/or are FORFEITED in the EXCHANGE as a result of them no longer being an INDEPENDENT.
By CONTRACTING registering to receive aid, service, partnership,… Even in License such as MARRIAGE = one is no longer considered an independent, one in fact being now partnered… One has not only EXCHANGED vows, they have in fact exchanged = TRADED = exchanges = forfeits, in part, their CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS = FREEDOMS and RIGHTS = INDEPENDENCE for INTERDEPENDENCE = INCORPORATION. They are then whether in full understanding or not, “usually not”… Effectively they are then LEGALLY declared DEAD = a CORPS on PAPER, by the INCORPORATION through CONTRACT with our CORPORATE GOVERNMENT = NATION and then DEEMED “PROPERTY” = “CAPITAL” = collateral = security = STOCK of the NATION = CORPORATION, which can be effectively TRADED on an OPEN MARKET of CAPITAL INVESTORS = IN AN EXCHANGE = stock exchange = trade exchange = market = STOCK MARKET.
Ironically, it is those the system claims to help, protect or who are promised AID, LICENSE, SECURITY,… and/or FREEDOM = IMMIGRANTS and/or those who are WEAK = INFANTS, the ELDERLY, the ILL,… = ONE WHO has CONTRACTED/SOLD or TRADED his INDEPENDENCE = FREEDOM in exchange for EMPLOYMENT, PARTNERSHIP or SERVICES,… GOVERNMENT provided HEALTH CARE, WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY = SECURITY,… Who are declared DEAD = and turned into “PROPERTY” for the nation = equity = “CAPITAL” = “SECURITY” = why YOUR NAME is printed in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on all Legal Documents, Contracts, Forms, Licenses, Court Papers,… = SECURITY/STOCK for our NATIONS DEBTS = SOCIAL SECURITY = “AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP” = why JUDGES wear BLACK.
BENCH = BANK in LATIN
As in the Judges Bench
More irony… “AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP” = a CATEGORY INVENTED during the SAME TIME in HISTORY when we claim SLAVERY has been ENDED and just when the IRS, STOCK MARKET, SOCIAL SECURITY,… then BEGAN = all set up in order to PAY OUR NATIONS CIVIL WAR DEBT with CAPITAL = “FREED SLAVES” = MANY NOT BORN HERE or BORN YET, then RECEIVE LIMITED PROTECTIONS, RIGHTS, and FREEDOMS = WHILE THEY ARE DECLARED DEAD and as PROPERTY for TRADE to SELL and MARKET GLOBALLY = STOCK MARKET CAPITAL. As we announce to them they are FREE and tell the world SLAVERY has ENDED. While ENSLAVING them and usually their children, generations, the world… into the new system and call it AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP and/or DEMOCRACY.
Then they CERTIFY = BIRTH CERTIFICATE and REGULATE = REGISTER (like meat in the market place or a ship docking into a port = MARITIME LAW) the FREE MAN/WOMAN in to the system through the title = ideology of “AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP” = FREEDOM and SOCIAL SECURITY.
HA!!! Just ASK MOST AMERICAN’S how FREE or SECURE they feel SOCIALLY… As the fill court rooms, jails, prisons, and stand in lines every where to board, be searched, scanned, pissed, x-rayed,… To QUALIFY, be PERMITTED or LICENSED, or to BE DENIED any claim to ANY meager BENEFITS, AID, EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, HEALTH CARE, TRANSPORTATION, RIGHTS or FREEDOMS of the so called “SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM”…. That only truly works and protects those who are wealthy enough to be INDEPENDENT of or above the need to CONTRACT.
SO IT WASN’T WRITTEN TO PROTECT EVERYONE!
IS THE CONSTITUTION THE REMEDY OR THE PROBLEM???
A TROJAN HORSE PERHAPS???
IT ALL SEEMS LIKE an OXY MORON……… FALSE ADVERTISING, a series of PYRAMID SCHEME or CORPORATE FRAUD…!!! to me.
IS ANYONE TRULY FREE or PROTECTED???
Today, in the information age, an awakening is believed to be occurring around the globe to many global facts and truths, including these,…
The educated individual is beginning to stand and say, one has the RIGHT to GROW, BE EDUCATED and then CHOOSE if they are WILLING TO TRADE THEIR PROTECTIONS, RIGHTS and FREEDOMS for DEATH on PAPER to become CAPITAL and ANSWER TO or PARTICIPATE IN the INCORPORATION of the “FREE?, DEAD or ENSLAVED” = AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP… and/or OUR INCORPORATED SYSTEM of GOVERNMENT = A CORPORATION, or ANY of the ABOVE A FORE MENTIONED PROGRAMS… or so-called SECURITY… That they promise.
Which only reminds me of how we were suppose to have gotten started in the first place…
DECLARING OUR INDEPENDENCE from ENGLAND and THE BRITISH CROWNED COLONIES…
WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT WENT WRONG???
The REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY
I DEDICATE this Section to yet another one of my heroes and mentors, now passed, GRANNY D = Doris Haddock. Who I was and am still today, so very honored to have talked, walked and stood with in Oct. of 1999. (Regretfully I have no images today of it) When she made her Historical Journey at the age of 88, from the Rose Bowl Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, California for CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM through Bowling Green, Kentucky on her way to D.C.. I couldn’t wait to meet her at the Kentucky State line as she entered the Commonwealth, where I joined her to walk…
Who when she arrived in D.C. she was then “Arrested at the Capitol”, On April 21, 2000, along with 31 others, was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in the Capitol and was charged with the offense of demonstrating in the Capitol Building. It was said to be a peaceable assembly, but the demonstrators were arrested by the Capitol Police.
She entered a plea of guilty, but made a statement to the court where she explained the purpose of her actions.
“Your Honor, the old woman who stands before you was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in America’s Capitol Building. I did not raise my voice to do so and I blocked no hall.
I was reading from the Declaration of Independence to make the point that we must declare our independence from the corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns.
In my 90 years, this is the first time I have been arrested. I risk my good name –for I do indeed care what my neighbors think about me. But, Your Honor, some of us do not have much power, except to put our bodies in the way of an injustice–to picket, to walk, or to just stand in the way. It will not change the world overnight, but it is all we can do.
Your Honor, to the business at hand: the old woman who stands before you was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in America’s Capitol Building. I did not raise my voice to do so and I blocked no hall. But if it is a crime to read the Declaration of Independence in our great hall, then I am guilty.”
The judge in the case sentenced Granny D to time served and a $10 administrative fee.
She once said, the reason for her journey was simple, “I don’t want to lying to my grandchildren when I tell them they can grow up to be President one day.” After her journey she would actually find herself accepting a Democratic Nomination and later end up running for Political Office before her Passing at 100 yrs.
I often wonder now, and I don’t believe she had, due to her accepting a Democratic Nomination. If she had fully figured this part of it all out. Which was the cause for why she had to make her historical journey in the first place.
Why I had to join her in her lobby about the lobby =
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations were often terminated if they caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Most COUNTRIES are CORPORATIONS (except Iran, North Korea and Cuba)
Most CITIES and AGENCIES, acting as GOVERNMENTS are CORPORATIONS.
Most EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL OFFICES are CORPORATIONS.
Every NAME in the U.S. is a corporate entity, filed at the time of your birth and acceptance of a social security number. This has been true since 1933 and the ” fake bankruptcy” of the U.S. At that time every NAME collectively became the collateral for the bankrupt nation, in their NAME capacity as a corporation with a lifetime of equity and value.
These implications are STUNNING because:
ALL OF THESE “CORPORATIONS ARE PRIVATE AND FOR PROFIT!
How is it that private bankers can profit from your lifetime of value and equity but you as an individual cannot?
How can a corporation elect a President of the corporate United States since all corporate heads are appointed. (Who appoints our President?) How can a corporation tell us we have to pay taxes? How can a private, for profit corporation make laws that are “legal” for people? They can only make “rules” applicable to other corporations. Oh, yes our NAMES ARE corporations. But how can NAMES as people be corporations if we never knowingly gave our consent, since consent is required? This means that a private government is run through the U.C.C. and Depart of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve, but WITHIN the sham appearance of a democracy.
Now some of the insane decisions by our politicians and wall street make sense. They were making decisions for their CORPORATE HEADS (certainly not for the peons) and in that regard their decisions made perfect sense.
Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS code number are assigned to corporations in America to track their credit ratings. Below you will find the DUNS numbers for the aggregate US government and each of its major agencies, those of the aggregate governments of each US state along with that of its largest city, and those of the aggregate United Nations and some of its major agencies. These corporate code numbers can be verified by using the following link to the D&B website and typing in the required information: http://mycredit.dnb.com/search-for-duns-number/
In checking DUNS code numbers for governments, you will find that they have many subsidiaries and shell corporations to lessen financial accountability. You will find that some of them are listed as being in a geographical location other than in their territorial authority, making their operations even more suspicious. The City of Chicago corporation, for example, is located in Washington, DC, the State of Montana Corporation is located in Chicago, Illinois and the State of Maine corporation – listed with seemingly sardonic humor as “State-O-Maine Inc.”(< JUST GOOGLE) – is located in New York City, New York.
You will often also see executive, legislative and judicial offices themselves listed as corporations.
Manta.com is a website for obtaining data on corporations. If the names of any of these government entities are entered, you will find that virtually all of them are listed as private, for–profit corporations. You will also see in the aggregate valuations of their assets that Manta.com provides is vastly greater than what is listed in these private government corporations’ fraudulent but well-publicized budget documents that seek to justify draconian but fraudulent budget cuts and their related tax-based extortion rackets.
This confirms that many hundred trillions of dollars of the people’s money listed in the semi-secret government comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) as government institutional investments are being siphoned off by the global banking cartel and those sinister forces behind it.
They are doing this via that obscure subsidiary of the private, for-profit Federal Reserve System known as the Depository Trust Clearing Center (DTCC), dba Cede Inc. (Again, note the sardonic humor.) This semi-secret entity fraudulently confiscates these investment funds as an executor after they have been registered by brokers, relegating investors to mere beneficiaries whose funds can then be lawfully – at least according to presently and commonly used Universal Commercial Code (UCC)-based statutory law, not constitutional or common law — confiscated at the will of said executor.
The implications of this are staggering: not only has this corporate subversion of government happened in America and with the United Nations headquartered here, but it has happened in almost all of the nations of the world by means of similar corporate subversion enacted under different names. This definitely explains why governments at all levels in almost all nations no longer protect the public interest, but only special interests – specifically, the interests of their fellow predatory for-profit corporations whose actions are now destroying this planet and all life upon it.
The world could well see sweeping constitutionally-based legal and law enforcement actions in all of the nations of the world against those who have perpetrated crimes against nature and humanity. The new transparent governmental and financial models now being tested in the nation of Iceland. Likewise poorly publicized mass resignations of government, banking and corporate officials now occurring worldwide are both heralds of these imminent transforming events.
DUNS Numbers of the US Corporate Government and Most of Its Major Agencies
United States Government-052714196
US Department of Defense (DOD)-030421397
US Department of the Treasury-026661067
US Department of Justice (DOJ)-011669674
US Department of State-026276622
US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-Office of the Secretary-112463521
US Department of Education-944419592
US Department of Energy-932010320
US Department of Homeland Security-932394187
US Department of the Interior-020949010
US Department of Labor-029536183
US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)-Office of the Secretary-030945779
US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-931691211
US Transportation Security Administration (TSA)-050297655
US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-056622429
Bureau of Customs & Border Protection (CBP)-796730922
Federal Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)-130221646
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-057944910
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)-003259074
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-079933920
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-364281923
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-037751583
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-020309969
US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)-003475175
US Public Health Service (USPHS)-039294216
National Institutes of Health (NIH)-061232000
US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)-927645465
US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-138182175
US Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-040539587
Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Fed)-001959410
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-878865674
National Security Agency (NSA)-617395215
US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-167247027
Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms & Tobacco (BAFT)-132282310
Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-926038563
Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)-926038407
DUNS Numbers of Each US Corporate State and Its Largest City
State of Alabama-004027553 City of Birmingham-074239450
State of Alaska-078198983 City of Fairbanks-079261830
State of Arizona-068300170 City of Phoenix-030002236
State of Arkansas-619312569 City of Little Rock-065303794
State of California-071549000 City of Los Angeles-159166271
State of Colorado-076438621 City of Denver-066985480
State of Connecticut-016167285 City of Bridgeport-156280596
State of Delaware-037802962 City of Wilmington-067393900
District of Columbia-949056860 City of Washington-073010550
State of Florida-004078374 City of Miami-965299576
State of Georgia-069230183 City of Atlanta-065372500
State of Hawaii-077676997 City of Honolulu-828979612
State of Idaho-071875734 City of Boise-070017017
State of Illinois-065232498 City of Chicago-556057206
State of Indiana-071789435 City of Indianapolis-964647155
State of Iowa-828089701 City of Davenport-963855494
State of Kansas-827975009 City of Wichita-069862755
State of Kentucky-828008883 City of Louisville-943445093
State of Louisiana-0612389911 City of New Orleans-033692404
State of Maine-061207536 City of Portland, Maine-071747802
State of Maryland-847612442 City of Baltimore-052340973
State of Massachussetts-138090548 City of Boston-007277284
State of Michigan-054698428 City of Detroit-021733631
State of Minnesota-050375465 City of Minneapolis-009901959
State of Mississippi-008210692 City of Jackson-020864955
State of Missouri-616963596 City of Kansas (City)-832496868
State of Montana-945782027 City of Billings-068925759
State of Nebraska-041472307 City of Omaha-926604690
State of Nevada-123259447 City of Las Vegas-019342317
State of New Hampshire-066760232 City of Manchester-045009073
State of New Jersey-067373258 City of Newark-019092531
State of New Mexico-007111818 City of Albuquerque-129962346
State of New York-041002973 City of New York-021741036
State of North Carolina-830979667 City of Charlotte-809275006
State of North Dakota-098564300 City of Bismarck-080245640
State of Ohio-034309166 City of Columbus-010611869
State of Oklahoma-050411726 City of Oklahoma (City)-073131542
State of Oregon-932534998 City of Portland (Oregon)-054971197
State of Pennsylvania-933882784 City of Philadelphia-929068737
State of Rhode Island-008421763 City of Providence-069853752
State of South Carolina-067006072 City of Columbia-878281562
State of Tennessee-04143882 City of Memphis-051386258
State of Texas-002537595 City of Houston-967421590
State of Utah-009094301 City of Salt Lake City-017096780
State of Vermont-066760240 City of Burlington-037442977
State of Virginia-047850373 City of Virginia Beach-074736299
State of Washington-079248936 City of Seattle-009483561
State of West Virginia-828092515 City of Charleston (West Virginia)-197931681
State of Wisconsin-001778349 City of Milwaukee-004779133
State of Wyoming-832826015 City of Cheyenne-021917273
DUNS Numbers of the United Nations Corporation and Some of Its Major Corporate Agencies
United Nations (UN)-824777304
UN Development Program (UNDP)-793511262
UN Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization (UNESCO)-053317819
UN World Food Program (UNWFP)-054023952
UN International Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF)-017698452
UN World Health Organization (WHO)-618736326
This is a list of publicly traded companies (corporations) with the SEC.
Home | Latest Filings | Previous Page
Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System
EDGAR Search Results
SEC Home » Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System » Company Search » Current Page
Companies for SIC 8888 – FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
CIK to view company filings
Items 1 – 40
CIK Company State/Country
0000311669 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK R6
0000866710 BANCO NACIONAL DE COMERCIO EXTERIOR SNC O5
0001026725 BANCO NACIONAL DE OBRAS Y SERVICIOS PUBLICOS SNC O5
0001045299 BANQUE CENTRALE DE TUNISIE DC
0000912239 CANADA MORTGAGE & HOUSING CORP DC
0001498597 CARSO INFRAESTRUCTURA Y CONSTRUCCION SAB DE CV O5
0001016472 CITY OF NAPLES DE
0001109609 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF JAPAN INC.
formerly: DEVELOPMENT BANK OF JAPAN (filings through 2008-09-29)
0000033745 EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK N4
0000276328 EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA/CN
formerly: EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORP (filings through 2002-06-07)
0000873463 EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF KOREA NY
0000205317 FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL D5
0000035946 FINLAND REPUBLIC OF DC
0001556421 FMS WERTMANAGEMENT 2M
0001179453 GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE DC
0001163395 GOVERNMENT OF JAMICA NY
0000931106 HELLENIC REPUBLIC NY
0000216105 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND Q2
formerly: REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY (filings through 2011-11-25)
0000052749 ISRAEL STATE OF NY
0000052782 ITALY REPUBLIC OF L6
0000053078 JAMAICA GOVERNMENT OF L8
0000837056 JAPAN NY
0001551322 Japan Bank for International Cooperation M0
0000053190 JAPAN DEVELOPMENT BANK M0
0001109604 Japan Finance Corp
formerly: JAPAN BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (filings through 2008-09-29)
0000837335 JAPAN FINANCE ORGANIZATION FOR MUNICIPALITIES
formerly: JAPAN FINANCE CORP FOR MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISES (filings through 2008-09-29)
formerly: KREDITANSTALT FUER WIEDERAUFBAU (filings through 2004-11-12)
KREDITANSTALT FUR WIEDERAUFBAU (filings through 2002-10-11)
0000835615 KFW INTERNATIONAL FINANCE INC DE
0000869318 KOREA DEVELOPMENT BANK NY
0001483135 KOREA FINANCE Corp M5
0000878519 LANDESBANK BADEN WURTTEMBERG DE
0001306843 LANDESKREDITBANK BADEN WURTTEMBERG FORDERBANK 2M
0001144797 LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE RENTENBANK I8
0000356049 LONDON FINANCE & INVESTMENT GROUP PLC/ADR/ NY
0001027457 NATIONAL POWER CORP R6
0000357024 NORDIC INVESTMENT BANK H9
0000202811 OESTERREICHISCHE KONTROLLBANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT C4
0000074615 ONTARIO PROVINCE OF A6
0000076027 PANAMA REPUBLIC OF DC
Home | Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System | Previous PageModified 03/14/2012
Home | Latest Filings | Previous Page
Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System
EDGAR Search Results
SEC Home » Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System » Company Search » Current Page
Companies for SIC 8888 – FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Click on CIK to view company filings
Items 41 – 60
CIK Company State/Country
0000077694 PERU REPUBLIC OF NY
0000836136 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A1
0000862406 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK A3
0000842639 PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA NY
0000722803 QUEBEC A8
0000852555 QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORP C3
0001191980 REGION OF LOMBARDY DE
0000914021 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA DC
0000019957 REPUBLIC OF CHILE
formerly: CHILE REPUBLIC OF (filings through 2002-11-01)
0000917142 REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA NY
0000873465 REPUBLIC OF KOREA M5
0000911076 REPUBLIC OF PORTUGAL DC
0000932419 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
formerly: SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF (filings through 2002-04-10)
0001030717 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NY
0000869687 REPUBLIC OF TURKEY NY
0000203098 SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCE OF NY
0000225913 SWEDEN KINGDOM OF V7
0000898608 TREASURY CORP OF VICTORIA C3
0000101368 UNITED MEXICAN STATES NY
0000102385 URUGUAY REPUBLIC OF DC
for your view, re-view
please take the time to un-learn the un-truths that have engulfed your entire life.
if you don’t take the time… I can ill afford to share my time with you… We have no common thread.
Thank you for your consideration
“People will always have opinions about your decision because they’re not courageous enough to take action on their opinion.”