It has come to my attention that my request to those of the Republic for assistance is being met with such statements as: "Reporting crimes by signing these affidavits is combative and I will be seen as an enemy combatant."

The lack of logic in this position is overwhelming to say the least.

It has also been reported that the "Man on the Land" standing bars reporting crimes or taking action against known wrongs.

Again, the utter lack of logic, moral caliber and simple common sense is evident in the statement itself.

It has also been reported that one is unable to operate in two capacities: creditor man on the land and beneficiary of current systems.

Well, folks, anyone using Federal Reserve notes are doing exactly that. Anyone taking benefits of statements by the U.S. to discharge a liability or claim or offset an assumption is in fact engaged in commerce with the U.S. and committing enemy acts.

How does one take advantage of one set of statements issued by the U.S. or its instrumentalities and then say others do not apply or are dangerous to apply? The position that filing the complaints as I requested creates some sort of enemy combatant status falls in the face of simple logic.

The complaints are reports set out in the forms created for such acts by the U.S. The complained of acts result in felonies, also clearly described by U.S. statements. I am asked to believe some sort of enemy status is constructed by accepting and returning open, notorious offers by the U.S. for supervision of its own agents.

If this in fact is the core of the matter, then years of successful reforms through acceptance are invalid; and acts of enemy combatants; as well as fraud - politically, legally, commercially and morally.

POLITICAL: Man on the land standing is a political capacity. The Republic is a political forum with its roots in the moral forum. The political construct, The Republic, is the source of all current power being operated or administered by current government! It matters not whether the administration is correct and proper, when its source of power is the same in either situation. In order for a Man on the Land to retain his political viability it is required that the powers assigned organically are noted for proper administration in current forums.

The complaints are the administrative record of wrong doing.

The simplistic way to explain this is a single question: "When does not the 6th Amendment apply?" Both the Republic and statutory constitutions have a 6th Amendment that say the same words, with Supreme Court statements exposing the intent and administration of that intent is to be carried out at all times in the same manner, without delimiting factors of any nature.

A. Legal Syllogism

Major Premise

1. The United States in any and all its capacities or standings is a construct made up of written statements, defining, delegating and delimiting its powers and those authorities to administer them by its agents or instrumentalities.
2. All written statements issued by the U.S., any of its agents or instrumentalities, are binding on each and every of its acts or omissions and a hierarchy of authority exists. For example: Supreme Court statements are more powerful than Circuit Court statements. Congressional statutes are more powerful than resolutions or private acts.
3. Any act outside parameters set by written promises, the statements issued by the U.S. for reliance by those the U.S. affects, is necessarily done by those actors administrating the promises by the U.S.!

Minor Premise

Any act or omission resulting in operation outside the authorities, written statements, (e.g. promised obligations of the U.S.) are private acts in contemplation of private benefit and profit for the actor who commits them.

Conclusion

Actors (e.g. government officials) who act outside the written promises issued by their employers, the U.S. or the states, in any nature whatsoever, by failing to be in strict compliance with the promises as stated, obstruct the U.S. and/or states from completing its/their promised performance. These acts of obstruction are felonies, harmful on those affected by such breach of promise of the U.S. These fiduciary breaches have NO DEFENSE due to the fact that all government officers are a public trust with each officer placing his/her personal bond, his/her oath, to secure performance for the U.S. or state.
Calling due such security agreement is mandatory on anyone affected by U.S. acts.

B. GENERAL STATEMENT

The use of one part of a system to access discharge of benefits, accrued accounts, or bond processing, absolutely binds such user to the system as a whole. Why? Again, the logic is very direct and simple.

There is no evidence that the system currently operated as government in America is not an integrated whole. Nor is there any evidence that separation of various titles, rules, regulations, codes is authorized by them. In short, when one buys the ham, one gets the whole pig.

In order to clear up any doubt about the above statement, the following is presented:

"If it is not in writing with credit taken by the U.S., its agents and/or instrumentalities, for issuance, then it is not an act by the U.S."

Those who say filing criminal complaints, for/on known wrongs, is an enemy combatant's act, define themselves as such; because the definition of "enemy combatant" in Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) states in clear, concise terms that the U.S. determines who its enemies are! WOW! What a concept!

Further, TWEA states that NOTICE of combatant status will be given with opportunity to respond.

I have heard the Patriot Act did certain things, such as suspend habeas corpus. We'll see!

I read the Act and related papers. It reiterates TWEA definition of "enemy combatant". It still requires determination by U.S.

Perhaps these questions will clear up many issues. "If the U.S. has not declared one an enemy combatant in accord with its own statements and one says about himself that one fears being an enemy combatant for acting under statements issued by the U.S., did not that one speak to capacity as an enemy combatant?"

"Did not that one state U.S. promises are fraudulent before the fact?"

This is on assumption that U.S. will not act when requested to do so.

<The slippery slope to perdition is paved with good intentions.>
Man on the Land standing or even claim to same says that individual is the highest on the hierarchy - over artificial persons (e.g. government, banks, etc.). The claim of SOVEREIGNTY over governments carries with it responsibility. That responsibility is, at its most basic, the duty to supervise the agents operating powers originally assigned by Man on the Land to governments. No matter how many alterations the administrators make the original powers, the authority and the duties there under still exist.

Being that the Republic in which the concept of SOVEREIGNTY exists is a political forum, the Man on the Land with capacity is a political capacity. This does not limit the man from having more than one capacity.

Further, the simple recognition that the current government administrative forums are founded upon the original political jurisdiction clears up the concept of enemy combatant.

"How could/can one be an enemy of one's own construct?" This question exposes that some other factors are at work.

Argument: That the government is bankrupt, operates administratively only and is a commercial for-profit entity and operates on its value - the People - via some sort of undisclosed contract or assumption of same.

All of this being true does not change the fact that the principal, the United States, issued open, notorious statements for reliance by those who accept them.

Print this Web Page in a Word Document Press Here