Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage
You were told there was only ONE explosion
Video: Brigadier General Ben Partin speaks about Oklahoma City, Waco & Communism
McVeigh Video Destroys OKC Bombing Official StoryMon Dec 18, 2006 20:08
McVeigh Video Destroys OKC Bombing Official Story
Shows McVeigh was in military receiving instruction in "explosives and demolition" over a year after official story says he was discharged, whistleblower harassed for years while unknowingly in possession of bombshell tape
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Monday, December 18, 2006
A video that shows Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh at a U.S. military base that specializes in explosives and demolition training over a year after he supposedly left the army puts the official story of the April 19 1995 federal building bombing under serious doubt and mandates a re-opening of an investigation into the terror attack that killed 168 people.
The video was released by Bill Bean, a film producer who has suffered intense surveillance and harassment since taking the footage, and is the subject of a February 2007 Hustler Magazine feature story.
On August 3rd 1993, Bean was given a tour of the Camp Grafton military facility in North Dakota as part of a research effort to scout possible shooting locations for a film he was working on. Bean met the Camp Superintendent Col. Dahl and was permitted to film every location he visited.
--
"I did not realize how significant what I had was, for many years," states Bean, "It was not until Mcveigh’s trial that I realized it was Mcveigh in the tank. Even then the larger point escaped me. That point is, McVeigh was not supposed to be in the military at that time. His military record shows him enlisting in 1988, being honorably discharged from the Army, on Dec. 31, 1991. His records then show he was in the Army reserve in Buffalo New York, from January 1992 until May 1992, he was then honorably discharged from the Army reserve. After May of 1992 he was never again in uniform on any base anywhere, never again part of the military. He was totally out of military service. The FBI states the only time they lose track of McVeigh, in his entire life, is the late summer of 93. They think he was somewhere between Kingman Arizona and Decker Michigan. Probably at gun shows, meeting antigovernment rightwing militia types. But he wasn’t, he was at Camp Grafton, in uniform, learning explosives and demolition!"
CLICK HERE FULL REPORT / SEE VIDEO CLIP:
12/18/06 - ALEX JONES INTERVIEWS BILL BEAN
SHORT CLIP ABOUT JACK BLOOD BEING ARESTED
THEN FULL INTERVIEW WITH BILL BEAN....
AUDIO:
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L001I061218-jones-bean.MP3
Update 05/25/05: Judge ordered disclosure of info on informants that could shed light on Oklahoma City tragedy
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_UPDATE2.htmMURDERED BY OKLAHOMA
Ken Trentadue
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_Trentadue.htm
Officials had prior knowledge of bombing
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_update.htm
================================================== =
to blow up the MURRAH BUILDING?
Listen to the News....again!
http://www.apfn.org/audio/okc.ram
http://www.apfn.org/audio/okc2.ram
WHO KILLED TERRY YEAKEY?
Only a couple of hours into the rescue, Sgt. Terrence Yeakey became
painfully aware of something disturbing. Did he somehow figure out that the
building had been blown from the inside and that the news reports were
baloney? Did he overhear a strange conversation from some of the many ATF
agents who were on the scene sooner than they should have been? Whatever it
was, Terry was upset. He called his wife that morning crying - the big ol'
Teddy Bear of a guy was crying - and saying repeatedly, "It's not true. It's
not what they are saying. It didn't happen that way." Terry Yeakey may have
been the first to discover the sham.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/yeakey.htm
[APFN] The Terrance (Terry) Yeakey Incident
Terrance (Terry) Yeakey was a courageous young black
Oklahoma City police officer who was on duty near the
Murrah Building the morning of that building's bombing.
Officer Yeakey entered the bombed out Murrah building
and saw things that apparently caused him to be murdered.
The hideous details are within these audio tapes, an interview
with Terrance Yeakey's wife:
(Real Player)
Part 1
http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm
Part 2
http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm
Only a couple of hours into the rescue, Sgt. Terrence Yeakey became
painfully aware of something disturbing. Did he somehow figure out that the
building had been blown from the inside and that the news reports were
baloney? Did he overhear a strange conversation from some of the many ATF
agents who were on the scene sooner than they should have been? Whatever it
was, Terry was upset. He called his wife that morning crying - the big ol'
Teddy Bear of a guy was crying - and saying repeatedly, "It's not true. It's
not what they are saying. It didn't happen that way." Terry Yeakey may have
been the first to discover the sham.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/yeakey.htm
[APFN] The Terrance (Terry) Yeakey Incident
Terrance (Terry) Yeakey was a courageous young black
Oklahoma City police officer who was on duty near the
Murrah Building the morning of that building's bombing.
Officer Yeakey entered the bombed out Murrah building
and saw things that apparently caused him to be murdered.
The hideous details are within these audio tapes, an interview
with Terrance Yeakey's wife:
(Real Player)
Part 1
http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm
Part 2
http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm
=========================================
OKC Blast Linked To bin Laden-FBI Refused To Accept Evidence
http://educate-yourself.org/nwobinla...nk21mar01.html
Execution Eye Witness - Susan Carlson, Media Witness: 4 min. 27 sec. "he appeared to be still breathing or what appeared to be shallow breathing, even after being pronounced dead and his eyes remained open".
Windows Media Player) - See and hear this first. Execution Eye Witness
http://www.apfn.org/movies/mcveigh-lives.WMV
Windows Media Player) - See and hear this first. Execution Eye Witness
http://www.apfn.org/movies/mcveigh-lives.WMV
To Order the " Final Report" on the
OKC bombing: Call toll-free 800-334-5597
Update: Check News Update for more information.
Any questions, email: info@okcbombing.org
OKC bombing: Call toll-free 800-334-5597
Update: Check News Update for more information. Any questions, email: info@okcbombing.org
For more information write to: Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee
PO Box 75697
Oklahoma City, OK 73147
PO Box 75697
Oklahoma City, OK 73147
[[We bought this book "Final Report" and highly recommend it!]]
Transcript of the Press Conference
http://www.apfn.org/OKC/press.htm
http://www.apfn.org/OKC/press.htm
The Terrance (Terry) Yeakey Incident
Terrance (Terry) Yeakey was a courageous young black Oklahoma City police officer who was on duty near the Murrah Building the morning of that building's bombing. Officer Yeakey entered the bombed out Murrah building and saw things that apparently caused him to be murdered. The hideous details are within these audio tapes
Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm
Terrance (Terry) Yeakey was a courageous young black Oklahoma City police officer who was on duty near the Murrah Building the morning of that building's bombing. Officer Yeakey entered the bombed out Murrah building and saw things that apparently caused him to be murdered. The hideous details are within these audio tapes
Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm
Officer Terrance Yeakey
M.L. Montgomery wrote in message 35A0E386.2CAD563@swbell.net ...
I don't know about this story, however Officer Yeakey was a DARE officer
for Mustang (Oklahoma) Schools in addition to being involved in the
Murrah Building Bombing rescue efforts. My son was one of his students
and Officer Yeakey had a *profound* effect on him and the other
students. Many of his DARE students attended his funeral and all,
including my son, received counseling. Our understanding was that
Officer Yeakey, despondent over the break-up of his marriage and
suffering post-traumatic stress from his role in the bombing, took his
own life.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1....2440A0@lr.net
I don't know about this story, however Officer Yeakey was a DARE officer
for Mustang (Oklahoma) Schools in addition to being involved in the
Murrah Building Bombing rescue efforts. My son was one of his students
and Officer Yeakey had a *profound* effect on him and the other
students. Many of his DARE students attended his funeral and all,
including my son, received counseling. Our understanding was that
Officer Yeakey, despondent over the break-up of his marriage and
suffering post-traumatic stress from his role in the bombing, took his
own life.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1....2440A0@lr.net
Suspicious Deaths
In the first minutes and hours following the blasts that devastated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, the morning of April 19, 1995, a number of selfless individuals risked life and limb to rescue many of the victims. Among them were Oklahoma City police officers, Terrance Yeakey, Gordon Martin and Ken Griffin, a number of Oklahoma City firefighters, Dr. H. Don Chumley, G.S.A. employee Mike Loudenslager and others.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1...ravda.msen.com
In the first minutes and hours following the blasts that devastated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, the morning of April 19, 1995, a number of selfless individuals risked life and limb to rescue many of the victims. Among them were Oklahoma City police officers, Terrance Yeakey, Gordon Martin and Ken Griffin, a number of Oklahoma City firefighters, Dr. H. Don Chumley, G.S.A. employee Mike Loudenslager and others.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1...ravda.msen.com
DAVID KULKENDORFER (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Reserve Deputy):
Excerpt:
Well, later on, during the evening, a lot of public officials started to show up. The mayor showed up with a contingency, and the district attorney, the governor, and several dignitaries. I was standing approximately in front of the Water Resources Building, to try to keep people out and watching the search and rescue. As I looked to my left, I could see Congressman Istook kind of working his way east to west. Well, he worked his way up to me and he stopped to my left and introduced himself and we kind of small-talked a little bit about, "How's everything? It's a bad, bad, bad deal." And he made the comment to me, he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen." And I said, "Excuse me?" And he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. We got word through our sources that there is a radical fundamental Islamic group in Oklahoma City and that they were going to bomb the federal building."
http://www.apfn.org/OKC/ISTOOK1.TXT
Excerpt:
Well, later on, during the evening, a lot of public officials started to show up. The mayor showed up with a contingency, and the district attorney, the governor, and several dignitaries. I was standing approximately in front of the Water Resources Building, to try to keep people out and watching the search and rescue. As I looked to my left, I could see Congressman Istook kind of working his way east to west. Well, he worked his way up to me and he stopped to my left and introduced himself and we kind of small-talked a little bit about, "How's everything? It's a bad, bad, bad deal." And he made the comment to me, he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen." And I said, "Excuse me?" And he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. We got word through our sources that there is a radical fundamental Islamic group in Oklahoma City and that they were going to bomb the federal building."
http://www.apfn.org/OKC/ISTOOK1.TXT
USA vs TERRY LYNN NICHOLS
The following .pdf documents were sent to APFN
to upload for Public viewing, Compliments of
MR. HARMON L. TAYLOR
P O BOX 516104
DALLAS, TX 75251
Phone: (214) 361-0401
Fax: (214) 361-0306
State Bar of Texas
Appellate Section
http://www.tex-app.org/bylast.php?firstletter=T
####
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/whywebother.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/letter.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ohreally.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/CoverSheet.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsLappin.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/whywebother.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/letter.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ohreally.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/CoverSheet.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsLappin.pdf
Notation for the following document:
It may make perfect, intuitive sense why Lappin is the Defendant.
It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a
Necessary Party. It's in the pleadings, but let me address that here,
briefly.
Land ownership in the "constitutional Government" depends upon a couple
of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17.
First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such
as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State
Legislature of the State in which the property is found.
For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership
in the "constitutional Government" have ever shown up; not in the deed
records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or
Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don't
exist regarding the Murrah Building.
Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned
by the "constitutional Government."
If the distinction between the "federal government" and the
"constitutional Government" is a topic for which additional information
would be helpful, I can also send my "Dissertations on Definitions" page
from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term
"federal" means. In sum, "federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean
"national." It most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal"
has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the
Constitution. The "federal government" does not arise from the
Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language
by which we can limit the "federal government."
The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized,
and properly so, as a "federal enclave" is the confession that it is, in
fact, private property.
Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property
on which sits the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a
flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution.
Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we
were able to locate a deed transferring title "to the United States of
America, or its successors," for that property. However, and also thanks
to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in
particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were
completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana
"consenting" to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the
"constitutional Government" never owned that property, either. And,
again, the proper characterization of that property's being a "federal
enclave" is the confession that it, too, is private property.
Here's the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property
is not owned by the "constitutional Government," that makes it property
that is subject to the authority of the "state." And, since we cannot
find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the
"United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a "for profit" business
enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a "not for
profit" business enterprise.
When a "not for profit" business entity gets sued, it is the traditional
rule that the AG of the "state" must be included as a Necessary Party,
especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly
did. The reason is that the "state" AG is a necessary party to all suits
involving public charitable trusts, and if the "state" AG is not
included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG,
at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on
failure of proper notice to the "state" AG. Some "states" may have rules
that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter.
In sum, because, through a "no evidence" line of proof, we CAN establish
that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on
property owned by the "constitutional Government," we know that it is a
business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That
being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a
"for profit" business enterprise, of some organizational structure or
other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable
trust, and if that's the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party
to the suit.
The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as
to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or
"not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't
know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered
questions continues to give us a clue.
per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsINAG.pdf
It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a
Necessary Party. It's in the pleadings, but let me address that here,
briefly.
Land ownership in the "constitutional Government" depends upon a couple
of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17.
First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such
as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State
Legislature of the State in which the property is found.
For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership
in the "constitutional Government" have ever shown up; not in the deed
records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or
Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don't
exist regarding the Murrah Building.
Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned
by the "constitutional Government."
If the distinction between the "federal government" and the
"constitutional Government" is a topic for which additional information
would be helpful, I can also send my "Dissertations on Definitions" page
from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term
"federal" means. In sum, "federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean
"national." It most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal"
has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the
Constitution. The "federal government" does not arise from the
Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language
by which we can limit the "federal government."
The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized,
and properly so, as a "federal enclave" is the confession that it is, in
fact, private property.
Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property
on which sits the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a
flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution.
Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we
were able to locate a deed transferring title "to the United States of
America, or its successors," for that property. However, and also thanks
to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in
particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were
completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana
"consenting" to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the
"constitutional Government" never owned that property, either. And,
again, the proper characterization of that property's being a "federal
enclave" is the confession that it, too, is private property.
Here's the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property
is not owned by the "constitutional Government," that makes it property
that is subject to the authority of the "state." And, since we cannot
find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the
"United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a "for profit" business
enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a "not for
profit" business enterprise.
When a "not for profit" business entity gets sued, it is the traditional
rule that the AG of the "state" must be included as a Necessary Party,
especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly
did. The reason is that the "state" AG is a necessary party to all suits
involving public charitable trusts, and if the "state" AG is not
included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG,
at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on
failure of proper notice to the "state" AG. Some "states" may have rules
that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter.
In sum, because, through a "no evidence" line of proof, we CAN establish
that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on
property owned by the "constitutional Government," we know that it is a
business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That
being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a
"for profit" business enterprise, of some organizational structure or
other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable
trust, and if that's the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party
to the suit.
The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as
to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or
"not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't
know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered
questions continues to give us a clue.
per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsINAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Appearance.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mphv.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/origcomp.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/grahamaff.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mti.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceUSAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG02.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mlvsuppl01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtroupd01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseUSAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseINAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/briefshwcse.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion02.pdf
Notation On the Notice of Appeal:
This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I
think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long
story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and
Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin,
and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote
out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop.
Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so,
to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what
I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that
length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the
appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when
the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day.
VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful.
The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a
certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the
"original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps"
and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal!
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AFFIDHLT-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion03.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion04.pdf
This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I
think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long
story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and
Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin,
and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote
out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop.
Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so,
to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what
I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that
length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the
appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when
the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day.
VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful.
The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a
certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the
"original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps"
and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal!
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AFFIDHLT-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion03.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion04.pdf
Notation: for the following document
Key to the appellate
court opinions is the characterization that the claims made were
"without authority," and that the claims have "no merit." While the rest
of the court's discussion is interesting, this part of the opinion tells
us everything we need to know. The appellate court went beyond
addressing the issues raised and addressed the question asked, which is
along the lines of, "How in the world can this be happening, legally
speaking?" Since the essence of these claims comes straight out of the
Constitution, the lesson is that the Constitution is "without
authority," and that the Constitution has "no merit," in the "United
States" "court" system. Said another way, the Constitution is not
"admissible evidence of Law," and, that being the case, the Constitution
is not the Supreme Law of the Land. From that point of view, given that
the "federal government" arises from private obligations, not the
Constitution, it makes sense that the Constitution is completely
irrelevant, and that is provides absolutely no limitations on the
"federal government," whatsoever. THAT's how the "feds" do what they do,
legally speaking.
Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it
correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish
between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government,"
but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional
Government" in operation, but only the "federal government."
The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is
still a good link to that.
Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this
case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the
Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have
occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the
"court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by
the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States
District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to
the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and
the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those
cases came on for trial in the early 1850's.
Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional
Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for
two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections
before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere
in the Constitution for choosing a President.
And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the
"popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the
sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It
definitely earmarks that event for our study.
The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just
didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's
as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get
me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal
experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope!
To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which
I'll close this note.
The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government."
Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article
I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for
Representatives represent People in the States.
And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent
the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to
look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the
non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular
"notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that
the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years
"late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such,
participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only
is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.
Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President.
From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in
the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing
the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there
are no Electors, there is no President.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.
Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and
the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there
is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no
Advice or Consent.
Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for
not one Office can be filled.
Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government"
and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present
non-existence of the "constitutional Government."
The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for
the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the
enemy."
Harmon
per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/THlitovervw.pdf
court opinions is the characterization that the claims made were
"without authority," and that the claims have "no merit." While the rest
of the court's discussion is interesting, this part of the opinion tells
us everything we need to know. The appellate court went beyond
addressing the issues raised and addressed the question asked, which is
along the lines of, "How in the world can this be happening, legally
speaking?" Since the essence of these claims comes straight out of the
Constitution, the lesson is that the Constitution is "without
authority," and that the Constitution has "no merit," in the "United
States" "court" system. Said another way, the Constitution is not
"admissible evidence of Law," and, that being the case, the Constitution
is not the Supreme Law of the Land. From that point of view, given that
the "federal government" arises from private obligations, not the
Constitution, it makes sense that the Constitution is completely
irrelevant, and that is provides absolutely no limitations on the
"federal government," whatsoever. THAT's how the "feds" do what they do,
legally speaking.
Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it
correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish
between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government,"
but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional
Government" in operation, but only the "federal government."
The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is
still a good link to that.
Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this
case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the
Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have
occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the
"court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by
the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States
District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to
the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and
the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those
cases came on for trial in the early 1850's.
Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional
Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for
two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections
before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere
in the Constitution for choosing a President.
And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the
"popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the
sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It
definitely earmarks that event for our study.
The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just
didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's
as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get
me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal
experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope!
To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which
I'll close this note.
The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government."
Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article
I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for
Representatives represent People in the States.
And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent
the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to
look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the
non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular
"notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that
the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years
"late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such,
participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only
is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.
Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President.
From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in
the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing
the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there
are no Electors, there is no President.
Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.
Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and
the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there
is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no
Advice or Consent.
Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for
not one Office can be filled.
Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government"
and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present
non-existence of the "constitutional Government."
The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for
the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the
enemy."
Harmon
per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/THlitovervw.pdf
