Helps for listeners

This page is for those who have wanted something of interest that they had heard on the shows and would like more information on those issues or speakers, etc.

Much of this information may be temporary, so make sure you get what you need in a timely fashion.

If any of these do not open directly and asks you to join gmail (non-gmail users) or anything, just email me with the specific attachment you want and I will try to send you another copy somehow (till I set up a host system to hold this material for us). 

Please also keep in mind that much of this material is posted as a courtesy to our guests and there for our listeners to review for themselves and is not personally endorsed as fact or as "legal advice" of any kind by this ministry.  We are only as an assembly of ameteur detectives in the realm of discovering the whole of this criminally corrupt system that wishes to eternally entrap us all, ourselves learning by way of the faith, and seeking the most accurate biblical avenues of educating ourselves in offering one another these documents and sources of information.  "wherefore ... work out your own salvation with fear and  trembling" (Phillipians 2:12)   -dwaine

Our friend Andrew Richards presents his research into the amazing aspects of the tabernacle, the temple, the law, etc, in the free pdf document: "ALL MY HOLY MOUNTAIN"  uploaded 4-2015

Information for tonight's guests (9-27-2012),

 Dennis Woods and Bracey Fuenzilida:


School just started at KingWay on September 10, so it's not too late to enroll at   Tuition is only $500 for the year.


There is a wealth of information on the Constitution & Biblical law at Dennis' America-Betrayed website (about 300 pages), which is best accessed through the associated blog at


Just last month Dennis developed a series of 3-minute video commentaries on Patrick Henry's 24 speeches against the proposed U.S. Constitution in the Virginia Ratifying Convention.  All but 2 are completed in this series of 24 short videos. 


You can help drive this series to first page YouTube and Google by watching as many as you can all the way through the credit section.  Just type "Patrick Henry 1/24: Hidden Dangers of the United States Constitution Exposed" in the YouTube search box, or click here for the Patrick Henry videos on Dennis' youtube channel:

This is also the link to the page they mentioned tonight "America betrayed":



I.  Intro:  Patrick Henry:  Pioneer stock of W. Vir.: William Wallace

            A.  "Give Me Liberty" & "I Smell A Rat" 13 yrs later

            B.  All of his warnings transpired – They're winning because we abdicated


II.  Spiritual Problems With Constitution Patrick Henry Never Mentioned

            A.  Historical "bait & switch".  Statutes of Omri

            B.  Used Bible as "Great Political Textbook":  no evidence

                        1) No Bible in Notes from Federal Conv or Fed Papers

                        2) Rosecrucian admixture from Francis Bacon "New Atlantis"

            C.  Written at apex of Enlightenment

            D.  Like Jeroboam's golden calves 

            E.  Preamble: 

                        1) Social contract=democracy John Locke

                        2) Republican skeleton & democratic heart

                        3) Man establishing justice apart from God

            F.  Article VI:

                        1) Supreme law

                        2) No religious test

            G.  First Amendment:  Public worship false gods:  Rhode Is, Lebanon, Antelope


III.  Practical Problems denounced by Patrick Henry

A.    Crisis contrived: passion of slaves is fear

B.     Empire vs. confederacy – I Sam 8

C.     King can't take property without permission

D.    Sectionalism, presaged Civil War

E.     Corruption – set own pay

F.      Sword & Purse united in one body

G.    Militia Federalized – sheriff helpless

H.    Standing army tyranny – sheriff helpless

I.       Sweeping clause grants unlimited power

J.       Common law ignored, but not Christian:  Henry II "Father": "Gossip"

K.    No bill or rights / human rights in the Bible

L.     Patrick Henry's Prophesy:  Civil War w/I 100 years

M.   Outlaws indentured servitude

N.    No treaties with unbelieving nations

O.    States have no veto – Jonathan vs Saul

P.      "I despise, I abhor that paper"

Q.    No jury in the Bible

R.     Property confiscation by state

S.      Inconsistent and incoherent

T.      9/10 of "yeomanry" opposed

U.    Tribunal of Heaven is watching our decision

V.    Social contract vs civil covenant with God: Neh 9:38 & 10:29


IV.             Assignment:  

      A.  Interposition of lesser magistrate:  Samuel, Nathan, Elijah / John B in NT

      B. Apolitical Pastor Exhorted & Equipped.  Case#3a&b.  Adopt A Politician

Added by dwaine for listener convenience:
yeo·man·ry  (ymn-r)
n. pl. yeo·man·ries
1. The class of yeomen; small freeholding farmers.
2. A British volunteer cavalry force organized in 1761 to serve as a home guard and later incorporated into the Territorial Army.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

yeomanry [ˈjəʊmənrɪ]
1. (Historical Terms) yeomen collectively
2. (Historical Terms) (in Britain) a volunteer cavalry force, organized in 1761 for home defence: merged into the Territorial Army in 1907

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged

 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Here are the audios that Ted Weiland suggested on his last visit with us (our audio recording of 9-29-2012, part 1):

Plus a message I received from Ted right after that same show, offering us a sample of Albert Mohler's work as he had mentioned:


Following is the URL to Dr. Mohler’s interview with Dr. Frazer, which provides another important piece of evidence for  the battle in which we are engaged: 


Blessings, Ted

sample clip from above article where Dr. Frazer speaks of the founding fathers:

"... what their real theology was, was a mixture of Christianity and natural religion, or deism, and rationalism. And they combined those three elements together into what I call “theistic rationalism,” and that’s the term that I coin for their religious belief system. They took elements of Christianity and elements of natural religion and then, using rationalism, they kept what they thought was reasonable, was rational, and rejected what they considered to be irrational, and so if one wants to just look for—if one comes in with an agenda and one wants to demonstrate or prove that they were secularists, then one can find snippets in which they found that way if one chooses things conveniently. One can find places in which they sound like rank secularists.

On the other side, if one comes in with an agenda to show or to try and prove that they were Christians, one can find snippets in which they agree with Christian doctrine and Christian ideas, and sound Christian. But when one takes the totality of what they said and doesn’t use a lot of ellipsis (you know, the three little dots) to change the meanings of things, one finds that, in fact, they aren’t really in either one of those camps. They’re in the middle in what I call “theistic rationalism.” "

As a small word of caution here in having quickly gone over this above-linked interview.  First, I am in no way doubting or countering any of Ted's intentions in having sent this to us (as I wouldn't have linked it otherwise) but am going to state here that perhaps I am merely seeing things from my own particular purist / separatist sense from perhaps a slightly different vantage point than he, where I have found some discomforts in this above author/article, and would like to only address it simply for my conscience's sake here:

Some may find that in some places in this article there is an uncomfortable air of support for the controversial founders in this conversation with historian Gregg Frazer that differs say, from Chris Pinto's film "Hidden Faith of the founding Fathers" (or the works of many others now who have found evidence that these men were not biblically based whatsoever but merely using the Bible's language when handy, and often only as a mask or a shield of sorts), but in understanding this dialogue, please remember that this is a fellow from the Southern Baptist Theological School of thinking, where his picture of a seriously reformed remnant is not as strong as some of us might be in areas that this man may not be even aware of yet, and the articulation in his way of delivering his own classifications he has here for the founders is more likely to send some of us thinking that this article sends people right back to believing that some founders (John Adams in this article for example) was more "Christian" than Chris Pinto states in his film, yet the Southern Baptist mindset often doesn't see the more recent forms of deviation such as dispensationalism, etc, as being as serious a danger as some of us would.  I would suggest that all classifications of ANY type of "modified religion" (regardless of the pigeon-hole that is assigned to them by any man's classification system) is used even by the less"purist" types as the Southern Baptists for example here, simply because it does deviate from the purity of the Word of YHWH, and even they have to somehow "keep track of" each deviation that they have themselves categorized.  Please keep this in mind as you read this, as the red flags of all of this man's books being published by such big publishing corporations in and of itself has me very wary of the fellow's connections and intentions here, just as I would would be nervous if I were approached with a writing by someone like James Dobson, etc, who also gets tremendous economic and "system" support as this.  In other words, I am still not comfortable with what I am possibly reading out of this man's innermost motivations here.  All religious belief systems that deviate from YHWH's Word are of only one other origin, no matter how well some might want to give others credit for the way they decorate their own belief systems with the vernacular of (what would have been at the time) common "Christian" phraseology.  Where Frazer speaks of needing a third "hybrid" classification for what he calls "theistic rationalism", I would simply say that there are still (and always will be) just two sides (YHWH's side and "the adversary's side") and that his "theistic rationalism" is just a fancy term to name an abstract zone between the two that I would then more realistically call "neutralism" (if there had to be a third category created) yet simplified to its least common denominator of terminology.  So I have added this note for the reader that we might be mindful as we read this for ourselves that's all.  thank you. -dwaine

From the workshop of Gus  9-4-2012:

here's a great new video from my co-host Gus Breton as he appeared on Kevin Avard's show "Speak Up! just a couple nights back:

Gus Breton/ Kevin Avard SPeak Up! show

from the workshop of Allan:

Greetings Dwaine,


Please read this and you will find proof that the Constitution inspired by God “this constitution” as referred to in the Constitution of September 17, 1787 has never taken effect from day one.  All has been and is trickery, the oath in Article VI Clause 3 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was intended to bind the legislative, executive, and judicial officers of "this Constitution” but has never been taken………… read below.


Sincerely Allan

The Constitution of the United States George Washington orally swore to "preserve, protect and defend" on April 30, 1789, in this Article II Section 1 Clause 8 oath: "I, George Washington, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "So help me God," is not the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

 The Constitution of the United States George Washington swore to "preserve, protect and defend"  was comprised of all the territory claimed by some of the original thirteen States and the Northwest Territory the British lost to the United States of America in the American Revolution.  Washington could not take the simple Article VI oath by subscribing his name, George Washington, to the astoundingly concise but binding oath: "I, George Washington, swear to support this Constitution," because he already held two

offices: President of the United States of America, pursuant to the authority of the Articles of Confederation and President of the United States, an employment accepted by taking an oral oath, by the time the Office of President could legally be filled.

 The Office vested with the executive power, the President of the United States of America, required no oath, because the United States of America was a Confederacy of States, which had retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence under the Articles of Confederation, an Organic Law, which made no provision for any oath in its original form.  The oath in Article VI Clause 3 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was intended to bind the legislative, executive, and judicial officers of "this Constitution,"

to a new government described as temporary in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.

 The Office vested with the executive power of the United States, the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the Confederacy, United States of America, was the Article II Section 1 Clause 5, Office of President, which could not be constitutionally filled until after July 4, 1790.  The last item of eligibility for any person who is to fill that Office of President is "fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." The Constitution of September 17, 1787 refers to the "United States"

and the "United States of America," without defining those terms, so we must look to the clues provided by "this Constitution" and the other three preceding Organic Laws, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, to determine which United States George Washington had to reside in for fourteen Years to qualify for the Office of President.

 The first Organic Law, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, is so universally recognized as bearing the birth date of the United States of America; it would be foolish for me to suggest that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 refers to some other" United States"

and not the United States of America.  Even so, fourteen years from July 4, 1776 is July 4, 1790.  Fourteen years from March 1, 1781, the ratification of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, is March 1, 1795.  Fourteen years from the enactment of the Northwest Ordinance, which established a temporary government for the United States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, would be July 13, 1801.

 Fourteen Years from July 4, 1776, July 4, 1790, would have given George Washington, who was elected President of the United States of America on April 6, 1789, plenty of time to appoint someone to fill the Office of President and have that appointment confirmed by the Senate so that President could take his Office on or after July 4, 1790.  That is not what happened Washington combined the two offices of President of the United States of America and President of the United States, thereby, becoming Father and Dictator of his Country and every American President has succeeded him in those Offices. Not once after all the elections and the millions of votes cast has one President, one member of Congress, one justice or judge taken the Article VI oath "to support this Constitution"

to begin the process of adopting the orphan Constitution.

This 225th Anniversary of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 don't celebrate educate yourself, friends, business associates and neighbors.  The Constitution of September 17, 1787 is only difficult to understand because what you read doesn't jibe with what you have been told.  To learn the truth about the Constitutions and government read all the Posts on this site.  Better, ask me at how you can enroll in my "Basic Course in Law and Government" and receive free the basis of written law, the Organic Laws of the United States of America in a computer searchable format

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

More from the workshop of Gus:


There are a few more things worth noting regarding the DUN & BRADSTREET listing service:

D-B is a financial rating service for both 'public' and 'private' corporations.  Utilities and municipal bond ratings would come under D-B perview for certain.  It just really never occurred to me years ago when doing litigation discovery, research and analysis, and 'stoructured settlements' that there was seemingly anything incoherent with that fact that municipal and utility bonds are integral to D-B rating services.  I never ever stopped to think about or scrutinize that fact, yet alone allow my deliberation and research skills to 'wander' or 'wonder' into research that would have disclosed what we recently found.  Part of the ease of discovering the complex web of inter-related inter-locking CORPORATIONS had to do with ease of electronic research over the internet.   Years ago, if one wanted to search anything within any of the rating services, including "Moody's", Standard & Poors, and Dun &  Bradstreet, + others, one would have to either have to be a subscriber to the service in order to manually expedite their search-rating results, or, one would have to pay a fee and cause a search to arise.

D & B 'ratings' are effected everytime a 'public hazard bond', or 'surety performance bond', or 'indemnity bond' is complained against.  An 'administrative complaint' is usually all that it takes to cause a 'tag' or book entry to be made on any particular bond.  Any particular bond, once complained against three or more times, causes a change in underwriting bond 'risk'.

For bonded Bar attorneys, who in many cases may also be appointed, commissioned, or elected to 'public office' as 'Judge', 'Clerk of Court', etc. when/if their bond is complained against for good and reasonable cause, their bond may be 'pulled', and due to loss of effective bond or 'suretyship', they cannot 'practice' or 'discharge' the duty of the office held, or occupied.  In short, the bond maker-issuer is the bonding party for the benefit or on behald of the 'bondee', ie. the purported 'public officer', 'employee', or 'official'.  This would extend as well to all other 'public employees' and 'agents'-'agencies', etc.

Every 'person' being bonded has a Dun & Bradstreet 'bond rating'.  At least it is reasonable to assume such.  Once three complaints are filed against any bond, assuming they are with merit and well supported by fact and 'law' of the 'breach' of fiduciary duty, the bond is most always pulled or revoked.  The 'servant' at 'risk' by assuming the responsibilities of operating in any 'official capacity' or by 'employment', can no longer be underwritten as a 'no risk' or 'low risk' contract.

One incident of 'breach' or operating 'ultra vires', or 'without the law', causes the 'immunity' provisions of the written 'law' to cease to be effective, because when one violates the law as a 'public servant', one's immunity blanket ceases to apply, thereby leaving the insurer or bondsman or bond issuer exposed to the liability arising from the servant's acts, which under any 'breach of law authority' causes or gives rise to an 'injury' which is a civil or criminal commercial liability.

Everything, whether civil or criminal or martial, is a matter of 'commerce', and admiralty law is the venue and jurisdiction by which disputes in/of commercial nature are resolved in truth and fact.


All writings of the United States of America and of the UNITED STATES, or any other 'government unit' are forms of making an 'offer to contract'.

There is no written matter of material fact or issue of fact that is 'law' which is not bonded.  There is no 'office' or function of 'civil service' or 'public' function that is not bonded.  If the bond is not in existence, the bondee is 'exposed' and without 'coverage' by any 'surety'.

Therefore, there is no 'guarantor' behind the agent, officer, official, or employee having 'exposure', by 'assumption of risk', of a material breach or injury in fact by the bondee [person being bonded or insured].  This leaves the person under taint or cloud of operating 'in the public interest' without the constitutionally and statutorily required bond, and therefore, in tacit violation of the constitutions and statutes under the scheme of 'law'.  "Law" applies first and foremost to government, its employees, officers, and agents.

In today's rogue 'doctrine of necessity' 'de facto' environment, research has proven and documented that no person, performing as an 'officer of the court', being an alleged 'judge', being a 'Bar attorney' of the ABA or the Federal or State Bars, has a bona fide Constitutional Oath.  The Bond that is supposed to be in existence sits atop the Oath.  The Oath is not merely 'incidental' to the 'office' as has been ruled in some States by their corrupt court "officers".  The Oath is what imparts lawful and legal authority to the man/woman coming into 'holding' a 'public office' and becoming a 'public official'.

A public servant having no proper Oath cannot have a proper Bond to encompass or include those risks associated with the 'office', 'discharge of fiduciary duty' of the office, and the various levels or elements of 'law authority' underlying the office.  Hence, one may take an Oath to any office of the incorporated State, or the UNITED STATES, and not take a preceding Oath to the unincorporated de jure state or United States of America, and operate non/un constitutionally, which is all that has been going on for years, but which was not known or understood as being a material breach to the People of the State/state, causing or giving rise to material injuries in fact as a consequence of operating 'ultra vires', ie. outside the corporate charters and 'trust indentures' which create the office in the first place.


In the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, not one judge has taken the necessary Oaths of office, which include the organic 'state' de jure republic oath for "North Carolina", and the subsequent and inferior or 'lesser' oath for the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.  The latter 'public entity' has federal character, a Federal Employer Identification Number, a Federal Tax Identification Number, and is a federal 'instrumentality' of the CORPORATE 'UNITED STATES', and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, under definition of 28 U.S.C. §3002(15), AND 26 U.S.C. §§7701 (a)(9) and (10).  This documented fact pertains to every judge in every State court, but also applies to most every other 'public official' or 'law enforcement officer'.

I cannot address what other State public pretenders and 'District Attorneys' or "Prosecutors" do when bringing a criminal complaint against any "natural Man or Woman", which includes CORPORATIONS [YES, they are both the class of 'person' under statute 'law' definition], but in the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, when it is the bringer of the action, the People of the State are never brought in as 'party to the action'.   Only the CORPORATION/DEBTOR name is found on the Criminal Complaint or Information form.  Only the corporate State is present in the courtroom, trying a case before a CORPORATE JUDGE.  There exists a complete breach and break from the Constitution of North Carolina, because the People of the republic North Carolina and their 'law' are not present in the action nor party to it.  They are not in the courtroom, nor are they acting through any 'officer' of the People, as 'District Attorney', which Office alleges to be a 'servant of the People'.  It is NOT. Event the DA does not have the mandatory and proper Constitutional Oath as condition precedent under NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES, which clearly state at Chapter 11, Section 11, there shall be two Constitutional Oaths taken.

Absent performance according to that bonded STATUTE regarding bonded Oaths, leaves a clear and certain risk-liability issue for the Bond maker-issuer.  Some bonding agent has bonded the Statutes and other writings of the law of the State.  Some bond issuer has bonded State 'employees', 'officers', and 'public officials'.

Some bond issuer has, therefore, "underwritten" risk on the basis of having full knowledge that there exist no Constitutional Oaths beneath the CORPORATE OATH.  One cannot but presume that the bond issuer-maker has full disclosure; after all, 'they' have been registered within each State Department of Corporations, do business in all 'States' and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and are presumed to know the "LAW"....including the "law of the land ", which under their "UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE" and all secondary 'Civil' or 'Criminal' Codes, would find itself to be in harmony with their legislative jurisdictional 'statutes and implementing regulations' at U.C.C. 1-308, 1-207, and 1-103, wherein All Rights are Reserved, and the U.C.C. states that it is harmonious with 'all jurisdictions', which would include the jurisdiction of the "law of the land", 'common law', and the various common law Constitutions of the underlying several de jure republic 'states' of the American union, aka, United States of America.

Why would any bond underwriter knowingly underwrite these CORPORATE STATES, UNITED STATES, all of their 'sub-corporations', agents-agencies, instrumentalities, and their 'law authority' found in their various 'writings', private 'laws' etc., to operate a 'public' or 'municipal' construct as if it were 'lawful government', but knowing that it really is not?  The underwriters of bonds, therefore, could not allege any defense against a massive intake of related claims by private inhabitants of any of the States or UNITED STATES who have been "compelled" under duress, extreme duress, or risk of extreme duress and prejudice of 'seizure', 'confiscation' 'impound', 'occupation', 'detainment', or injury or termination by any means of potentially lethal force?

Everyone who has ever been inside a State of North Carolina administrative or judicial 'law' proceeding, or been before any 'clerk' or 'judge' of same, or been prosecuted by any County District Attorney within said State/STATE, has been within a "brutum fulmen":

Black's Law Dictionary, 4t Edition:  "brutum fulmen":  "An empty noise; an empty threat.  A judgment void upon its face which is in legal effect no judgment at all, and by which no rights are divested, and from which none can be obtained; and neither binds nor bars anyone.  Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl, 179 S.W.2d 346, 348.  Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum, "Judgments" §§ 499, 512 546, 549.

The "Office of Sheriff" is a most important link between the People of any de jure republic 'state' and the Courts, and Offices of the State.  However, it has been discovered that many Sheriffs do not, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of any local 'county' or County, have a bona fide prior or 'precedent' Constitutional Oath to their respective republic state.  Or, they may have taken a bona fide Constitutional Oath, and then disclaimed or disavowed it immediately henceforth by taking a CORPORATE Constitutional Oath.  "A man cannot serve two masters".

This same "axiomatic" principal applies to 'officers' of the United States as well.  How can the newly 'sworn' Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [a federal corporation] take a Constitutional Oath to the United States, or UNITED STATES, and be held to such an Oath as 'liable' for his/her breach of fiduciary duty to the people of the United States of America, or to the franchise corporate trust estate 'citizens of the UNITED STATES', when the office 'holder' enjoins by contract to the 'international purposes of INTERPOL', under its Constitution [charter-contract] at Article 30  shortly after taking said Oath?  Article 30 is quite explicit in meaning and intent.   If one understands the "international purposes of INTERPOL" and all other 'international agencies' was and is to 'establish a financial dictatorship within the United States/United States of America' for the benefit of undisclosed third parties, under jurisdiction and authority of the IMF-U.N, then all of the lower level 'breach of duty' by lack of proper Bond and Oath issues would begin to make clear sense.

In short, all alleged 'public servants' are serving 'public policy' and 'public administration' of the 'laws' and enforcing those laws to protect the CORPORATION, to the disinterest and detriment of the People, whom have been 'captured', 'searched', 'seized', 'boarded' as with a 'vessel', and which People have been placed into 'warehouse storeage' as 'human capital' and 'property' of the de facto King or "Sovereign", which/who has conquered and occupied the Office of the People, and subverted and subordinated it into an Office of Inquisition for YOU KNOW WHO!!

Lacking mandatory Oath, creates liability against the bond of the STATE, and every officer-agent-employee who has come to be 'employed' thereby. Breach of any underlying writing of the STATE, or State, or state, as an offer to contract in admiralty venue, is a certain "injury in fact" giving rise to a "material injustice" and resultant 'liability'.  There is no longer any question about 'risk analysis' or 'damage assessment'.  The only real issue is "HOW MUCH IS THE INJURY WORTH"?  WHAT PENALTIES should be compelled above the mere "pecuniary" or monetary 'relief' to be sought?  Treble damages?  Punitive damages?  Civil or Criminal or BOTH?

If Oaths and Bonds have not yet been ascertained for all relevant federal and State officers, agents, and employees, they should be compelled by FOIA request or subpoena duces tecum  immediately so that the elements of contract and breach of duty by these 'public servants' under mandate of relevant Constitutions, statutes, regulations, etc., including the U.C.C. in Admiralty venue can be comprehensively determined; then, a resultant 'cause of action' constructed accordingly.

It is further axiomatic that:   "Where a liability in equity arises due to injury by any party, and that party does not also provide a "remedy" for said liability, the injured party has the right and standing to create his own remedy"(Which would provide the secured right to seek Article III sec. 2 remedy for the deprivation of Natural Rights by way of a Title 18 USC sec 241 in the United States Court of Federal Claims.) This would n0t be a Title 42 USC proceeding for the U.S. citizen or person of diminished corporate status.

Persons without proper Oaths do not and cannot have proper Bonds OR satisfy the necessary requirements to "hold" a bona fide "Office", by 'commission', "election", or "appointment".  In short, an 'Officer' or "Office Holder" cannot but 'occupy' the office under false and misleading pretense, misrepresentation, and FRAUD, which strips the 'individual' of 'law authority' and 'immunity' under well-seasoned law of the land and sea.  Brutum fulmen!!    Bonds that are attached to such juristic 'persons' are subject to claim and lien, after "adequate assurance of due performancehas been found lacking pursuant to U.C.C. 2-619.  A proper Oath and Bond are but two of the three primary "poles" of "Office" [Oath, Bond, Commission].  One cannot act upon being 'duly appointed' or 'duly elected' or 'duly commissioned' simply by INCORPORATION and CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

NOTICE: CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS aka "Administrative Procedures Act" lacks any bona fide Constitutional nexus and is without "lawful authority", and thereby, has no nexus to the Constitutionally protected 'Right' of substantive "Due process" for the natural Man or Woman. Hence, any presumptive act or action taken against any natural Man or Woman by any oath sworn corporate 'official', 'officer', agent' or 'employee' lacking such nexus is subject to CLAIM and/or COUNTER-CLAIM in a Chancery venue and proceeding. The claim, once perfected after 'exhausting administrative remedy' is brought against the Bond and the DUN & BRADSTREET rating of that CORPORATE PERSON will be affected as a consequence.  The idea is not to seek an illegitimate claim for merely punitive or monetary purposes, but to seek claim on the basis of protest, dispute, redress, relief, and 'remedy' to restore you as to being made whole once again from the damage that has been maliciously exercised for the purpose to profit off your commercial value in total disregard and summary denial of the pre-existing accessible remedy provided out of necessity and thereby operation of law to avoid the circumstance of unjust enrichment of private and public parties, both natural and fictional.

Shannen Jackson

National Director of

Auditing and Lawful Resource

Projaris Management, LLC

also from Gus:

This is a very well written document.
Click the link below to download Rod Class' filing regarding the  Federal BAR associations violation of the monopoly laws and several other issues such as the "bad behavior" of a judge (#33), property taxes, Who REALLY owns your car  etc...


Here's Rod's latest filing into the Office Of Administrative Hearings
in North Carolina regarding David Lennon's failure to rebut Rod's
filing (7.26.12) rebutting Lennon's (7.16.12) Motion To Dismiss Rod's case. 
As a result of Lennon's MTD, Judge Gray has taken it upon himself to
rule "in writing" on the validity of Rod's suit against NC and the Attorney 
General's Office, etc. BEFORE a hearing. Rod was supposed to have an in-court 
hearing on Sept. 14...which was postponed to Sept. 24. But, it may or may not 
happen depending on what Gray does AND what effect this new filing of Rod's
will have.
Link to filing: 


P.S. Here's a link to the Yale Law School's Avalon Project. 
Lot's of ancient to modern foundational documents...But, remember,
these documents and the commentaries on them are subject to
human and academic bias and editing...Thanks to a listener of AIB.

Lillian Goldman Law Library - The Avalon Project: Documents in Law,
History and Diplomacy

From the workshop of Marc  9-4-2012:
An explanation of Social Security Administration Trusts and your identity/position
37K   View   Download  

From the workshop of Gus  9-1-2012:
1174K   View   Download  

Ex-parte H.H. 830 S. 2d 31 Amicus by Foundation for Moral Law CA lesbian parentage.pdfEx-parte H.H. 830 S. 2d 31 Amicus by Foundation for Moral Law CA lesbian parentage.pdf
170K   View   Download  
Ex-parte H.H. 830 S. 2d 31 SCOTUS Opinion.pdfEx-parte H.H. 830 S. 2d 31 SCOTUS Opinion.pdf
423K   View   Download  
129K   View   Download  

From the workshop of Marc  8-29-2012:

827K   View   Download  

from Frank Szabo.  Sheriff info:
If you believe the government is doing wrong and you do nothing in response, it may be true that the government is corrupt; but it is certainly true that you are.
#1 - Power of the County Sheriff.doc#1 - Power of the County Sheriff.doc
32K   View   Download  
#4 - Frank Szabo - Background.pdf#4 - Frank Szabo - Background.pdf
276K   View   Download  
#3 - Requirements For A Constitutional Sheriff.doc#3 - Requirements For A Constitutional Sheriff.doc
27K   View   Download  
#2 - (why there's) No Such Thing as Constitutional Rights.doc#2 - (why there's) No Such Thing as Constitutional Rights.doc
27K   View   Download  
Farm Freedom.pdfFarm Freedom.pdf
1826K   View   Download  

Frank Szabo campaign position document for listener's of past broadcast of 8-24-2012

from the workshop of Gus 8-22-2012:
Certified copy of Articles of Confederation.pdfCertified copy of Articles of Confederation.pdf
3831K   View   Download  
Transcript of Articles of Confederation 1777.docTranscript of Articles of Confederation 1777.doc
43K   View   Download  
The Decloration of Independence.docThe Decloration of Independence.doc
37K   View   Download  
68K   View   Download  
The Constitution That Never Was.docThe Constitution That Never Was.doc
51K   View   Download  

Weiss's Concise Trustee Handbook
A Treatise on Suits in Chancery, Henry R Gibson, Second Ed, 1907

Maxims of equity:

from the workshop of Marc 8-22-2012:

403K   View   Download  
above has interesting biblical comments!

Trustee_Handbook (1).pdfWeiss's Trustee_Handbook (1).pdf
907K   View   Download  
above is 2007 version, 2008 2nd ed. can be found with Gus's items.