Some New York Common Law Grand Jury Facts that are being hidden, by Eric Williams, a Reader here . . . I see Eric’s words as being of the greatest importance. . . ~J
After reading Eric’s
comment early this morning, I emailed him with a couple questions. Since
I haven’t heard from him, I’m now going to put it out for you all to
read. Let me say I think what Eric says is logical, simple in concept,
easily understood, and very important. This is often the way with good
ideas. He knows from his own experience in court about that of which he
speaks, and he has worked long and hardmoveme to make this lengthy explanation
readable.
For those of us interested in a peaceful resolution to our problems with the present corrupt court system via Common Law, I think this is absolutely a MUST READ. Is there a way we can support Eric? Anything we can do to offer our help? . . . ~J
It is my belief that such a document as the following and especially the Declaration I highlighted below, should be elaborated and properly adapted in all countries' constitutions and legal systems by concerned and awakened intellectuals , lawyers and constitutional professors , to the benefit of the Peoples already ridden and dominated by the NWO , the Agenda 21 and its long hand MONSANTO.
A world wide movement about Common Law and Common Law Grand Juries should manifest even since yesterday!
I only wish that the professionals mentioned above ,would have had read the Agenda 21 , or the MONSANTO 'diaries and agendas' or all of them , at least once, till now (in my country). Regretfully , I have not found this to be even relative to the minimum. But yet again, I might be wrong. m.l.p.
The following Declaration:
To all whom may be concerned, I, John Smith, to the best of my knowledge, having been born on the portion of the North American continent claimed by the united States of America to be under the political dominion thereof, more particularly in that area recognized as being under the political dominion of New York State (edit state as appropriate); having been born politically free and politically independent. I claim to have been born of the Posterity of the People of the united States as they established and designated themselves in the Preamble to the Constitution of the united States of America; do hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the Common Law, that I have never ever willingly, knowingly,and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial political entities, united States of America or New York State or State of New York. or any other member State of this Federation.
If there should be any evidence to the contrary, let it be hereby established, that any such evidence would only be in existence due to fraudulent indoctrination widely promulgated and instilled in unwitting children by dishonest unscrupulous criminally minded thugs, who had the intent of surreptitiously stealing the freedom of everyone born on this continent, and is therefore, not voidable, but totally VOID and of no effect!
And, any documents that might be ascribed to me, are lawfully authorized under the universal Law of Necessity, as the fruit of the fraud set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof. And such documents, if any, constitute no subservient status of me to any political superior.
I am Sovereign! And, I am of The Sovereign People of New Your State.
Signed on this ______ day of May, in the year 2014
Nunc Pro Tunk to an appropriate date of 2013 or otherwise___________
Hi Jean
I expect that many members of your Blog are involved with or if not, are very interested and concerned about how the New York Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) is being ignored by the New York State Courts. I think this is related to what Paul Craig Roberts is advocating.
Let it be understood here at the outset. These are very perilous times for our Freedom. I could not be more convinced that this Common Law Grand Jury movement is the one and only BEST single means whereby we might be able to take back control over our government through peaceful means!
I am concerned that the failures of the New York Grand Jury have been caused by infiltration of those who are intent on destroying The United States, and who have been acting with such intention since the day Thomas Paine published his book, “Common Sense”!
During the last week of May my attention was brought to the CLGJ events in New York, and I was provided with copies of eight of the New York Grand Jury’s most significant filings, which I have printed and very carefully read (links to those documents are included herein below).
One point before I expand on my concerns, can any of you imagine that the Justices of all the new York Supreme Courts would refuse to address this issue if those presenting it had not given those judges an out? I am not suggesting in any way that any of those judges, or any other judges, are enthused about the rising Common Law Grand Jury movement, however, those judges are certainly NOT stupid, and are not going to refuse to address this issue if properly presented.
Can there be any doubt that the Justices of these New York Supreme Courts have free telephone access to any level of appellate court judge that they might consider it appropriate to consult with before the NY judges rejected these CLGJ filings?
Can there be any doubt that the Federal Courts are going to uphold the rejections of the New York Courts?
Please read on for my in depth analysis as to why this CLGJ movement is failing, and what must be done to get it back on track before it is totally destroyed. As it now stands, I will not be surprised if those CLGJ members who participated in the “indictment” of these NY judges are criminally prosecuted and/or civilly sued.
For those members who are not all that familiar with my legal experiences, I functioned as a member of the Common Law Grand Jury of California back in the 1990s, in the Inland San Diego area. I also functioned as a Common Law Notary for about ten years in California, and was involved in the Leroy Schweitzer Montana Freemen Comptroller of the Currency Draft issuing monetary rescue, in which a California woman, Elizabeth Broderick, adopted Leroy’s methods.
I attended Leroy’s seminar in Montana during the time his bunker was under attack by the Feds. I advised Leroy to modify his Draft issuance to include an advisement document that no transaction paid for with such drafts should be finalized (ownership of property transferred), until the Comptroller of the Currency recognized and paid the drafts. I later advised Liz Broderick likewise, but both of them ignored my advice. Both Leroy and Liz were arrested. Leroy died in Federal Prison a few years back.
I created and provided notarized documents to almost a hundred people who had received Drafts from either Leroy or Liz. Some of these drafts were used by people to pay their IRS obligations. The IRS immediately accepted all such presentations, but when the IRS sent them to the Comptroller, they were all rejected and all of those people were prosecuted or subjected to substantial penalties. Because of the information I had included in the presentation documents I had provided, none of my clients had any serious IRS problems. Of course, none of their drafts were honored by the Comptroller, but the disclaimers I had provided them prevented any prosecution or penalties.
Prior to that, back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations. When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.
Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year I have had several people present letters challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or state or federal governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors.
I have also used this defense several times in traffic court and in every occasion the courts have either lost the file or pulled their arrest warrants.
Please take notice that I did NOT deny or admit I was/am a citizen of the United States. I would never do that in any official proceeding. What I did was challenge their ability to prove I had voluntarily submitted myself to the political dominion of their artificial entities. Please pay close attention to my phraseology! I did not say I was challenging the prosecutor to present proof I had volunteered myself into citizenship!
In all my many years of study I have not been able to discover any means by which an individual born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof other than by his voluntary claim. What I have established, and “proved,” by serving Admit or Deny Demands on Arkansas Governor Bebee, Atty. Gen. McDaniels, State Senator Key and State Representative Monty Davenport, is the following:
These Admission Demands, contained about 80 items establishing that the presentation of a birth certificate to be issued a driver license is the surreptitious ploy used by Arkansas (all states), to fraudulently entice free born individuals into political servitude. This is the means by which the governments of this country avoid a violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude established in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. (And in some state constitutions).
Citizenship is not actually the issue, the actual issue is any manner of servitude or subservience that serves to surrender an individual’s naturally birth acquired Sovereignty.
The reason I mention all this in a writing focusing on the CLGJ is because of the importance, the critical importance of “standing”. “Standing” is legalese, a “term of art”, as is the word “People” as used in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights and everywhere in regard to standing to serve on a CLGJ or in any reference to The People of the United States or any state, in regard to those of the Sovereign governing class.
“Standing” has to do with presenting yourself to the court in a way that the court can (must) recognize your authority to present yourself in the “office” you are claiming to hold. On the other hand, in any manner of prosecution, civil or criminal, the opposition must present evidence that it has standing, authority, to hold you accountable to its or the court’s authority. “Standing” has to do with “jurisdiction”. In many of “our” interactions with government this “jurisdiction”, is properly characterized as “political jurisdiction”.
The very first issue in every court event, no matter the purpose of the filing, is the standing of the individual(s) bringing the matter before the court for any action, administrative or judicial. The individual or group, must present to the court, information to establish that the group or individuals comprising the group, are politically qualified, have standing to present themselves in the office they are claiming to hold.
In these Common Law matters, the issue is NOT the standing of the Common Law Jury or the People, the issue is the standing of the individuals who are claiming to have standing to sit in the office of The People. To be eligible, those claiming standing must present some manner of declaration establishing that they are of The Posterity of The Sovereign People of the United States as was established in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution. Or to establish that they are of The Sovereign People of the State where they are asserting such authority.
Or, from another perspective, to simply establish that they have never ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally. having been fully informed of all the negative consequences prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit themselves to the political authority of any manner of artificial government, such as is the United States and or, the State of New York.
Filing documents claiming to be issued from some manner of Common Law Grand Jury does not, in and of itself, establish that such Jury is populated with individuals who are of the Posterity of the Sovereign People of the Preamble or the Sovereign People of the State, properly qualified to sit in the office they are claiming.
If the documents filed fail to set forth and establish the sovereign standing of the members of the CLGJ, then the Judge reviewing such filings cannot “see” the documents! The Judge might very well read the entire document, and I expect he would, because the very last thing he wants to do is reject a document where the filing entity has properly established its standing. I am most certainly NOT asserting that the judge wants to “see” the documents, that is NOT the point. The point is, when the issue is taken up higher, will the court above overrule the judge below? Or expose the rejecting judge to some manner of charges, such have been purported to be charged against all the New York judges, and others, listed in the defendants list included on page 2 of the fifth document included herein below, titled, “NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR CAUSE”.
I am seriously concerned that these charged will be deemed fallacious, frivolous, unwarranted, and constitute a criminal conspiracy to damage the integrity and reputation of the Courts of New York and the Justices thereof. I will Not be surprised to learn that criminal charges and civil suits have been filed against all who participated in preparing and filing these documents, all because the individuals filing them failed to properly document their political standing to present their claim of establishing a Common Law Grand Jury.
I called John of New York last Sunday (June 1, 2014), to bring this issue to his attention. There were two calls. During the first call at about 6:30 pm, I spoke only with John. When I mentioned my concern of the absence of the establishment of standing of the individuals claiming to be the GJ, I was met with considerable resistance. John insisted that the assertion that the documents were presented under the authority of the GJ was sufficient, that there was no need for the individual members to put themselves forward and risk physical retaliation which might befall them due to the seriousness of the charges they had brought against all these judges. John then asked me to call back at 9:30 as he had not yet had dinner. I then informed him that I had written a document I would like to email to him to read before I called back, and John them provided his email address. I sent John that email within five minutes.
In that email I had created a declaration designed for each individual jury member. Due to John’s concern of retaliation, during the time between my calls to John, I reasoned that standing could be established indirectly by including a Declaration that would assert that all the individual jury members had signed declarations establishing that they each had proper standing as Sovereign People, to sit on the GJ. I then sent the following second email to John, in relevant part:
Hi John,
Another way of doing this would be to include a general declaration with all Grand Jury filings certifying that all members of all the Grand Juries of New York State had individually executed declarations establishing that they were of the Posterity of the People of The United States as such as designated them selves in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution and that all members were qualified to sit on the Grand Juries of their counties.
Or similar wording, as appropriate.
They presume everyone acting here is a citizen unless you object. They are presuming all of your GJ members are citizens, not possible to be Sovereign People. You even cited a NY Code section declaring that to be true.
I am, Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Then, at 9:30, I called John back, however there were two other men on the call with John, four of us altogether. I met even more resistence from these other men. I was finally able to get them to stop talking over me, trying to explain to me what I already knew, to inform them that I had sent John a second email, at which time John said he had not yet read either of my emails.
I was finally able to get through to them that the reason the New York Courts had rejected their filings was not because of the Courts rejection of the CLGJ or The Sovereignty of the People of New York, but because the CLGJ filings had not included a declaration of the standing of the individuals to sit in that capacity, and that such declaration could be done with a general all inclusive declaration, such as I had sent to John in my second email.
All three finally agreed that they understood and would review what I had presented to be included with their future filings with the United States District Court, whereupon I left the call, considering that I would contact them, at another time to bring to their attention that their failure to include any standing information in their original letter to all the New York judges and also any documents that were rejected before that due to failure to establish standing, would cause all of those previous documents to be defective, and their charges against all those defendants, totally unfounded, and would open the GJ members up for criminal charges and civil suits.
After exiting that call I then went back on line to the source of the eight documents, and downloaded them and printed them all out, reread them making copious notes in regard to the many defects I found therein. Nothing overtly serious but unprofessional and unnecessary to accomplish the cause at hand, which is simply to have the state courts accept and recognize the authority of the Common Law Grand Juries.
In reading through these eight CLGJ documents, the first being a letter the NYCLGJ sent to every New York Supreme Court Judge. No where in this eleven page document is there any explanation or presentation of how those individuals who sent it to those judges had standing to appoint themselves (or be elected) to sit on such GJ.
Additionally, in that letter it is asserted that Article IV, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution guarantees that the Federal Government shall provide a republican form of government to every state. However, no where is there a presentation of any legally or lawfully established description of what it is that constitutes a republican form of government. There is a foot note at the bottom of page 8 of the Fifth Document, being the Notice of Removal To United States District Court For Cause.
However, this foot note is merely a meaning extracted from Black’s Law dictionary, which is nothing more than the opinion of the editors of that questionable “authority”. In this meaning it is asserted that sovereignty is vested in the people and is exercised by them directly or through representatives chosen by the people. Here, in the United Stats, it would seem that sovereignty is exercised by elected representatives, not directly by the people. The population of The People’s Republic of China might have a different view of the meaning of “Republic”.
I am certainly not questioning The People’s authority to exercise sovereignty. It is certainly reasonable that Sovereigns who have assigned their Sovereign authority to representatives to exercise in their stead, could revoke such assignment and re-assume the exercise thereof themselves. However, those individuals making such a revocation, or some portion of it, must present some manner of Declaration wherein they individually set forth and establish their individual standing as Sovereign People, to enable them to claim sanding to exercise such authority. There is no evidence of this in any of these eight documents.
Additionally, the Legislative branch of the Federal Government is created in the body of the Constitution. The People’s authority to create and operate a grand Jury is established in the Bill of Rights, therefore the GJ establishment would supersede any Legislative authority of the Legislature to supplant the GJ, especially when the manner of suplantation was accomplished through fraudulent inducement using the birth certificate driver license scam.
Now, in regard to that BC/DL issue, those attempting to re-establish the CLGJ must contend with and overcome this issue. I expect everyone of the members of every Common Law Grand Jury in this country, when they became sixteen years of age, presented “their” birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license. Most of the information prevalent among the freedom Community in regard to the driver license and the birth certificate is erroneous.
What is greatly missed in all the various explanations and assumptions in regard to an individual’s relationship to the government, is the Basic Fundamental Politically Independent Sovereign status of every individual when they are born. No one is born subservient to any other! This is NOT merely my opinion, this is clearly acknowledged in the prohibition of involuntary servitude set forth in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. “Involuntary servitude shall not exist in the United States…”.
There is no denying, it is a self evident fact, that “citizen”, the word, carries with it an inherent acknowledgment of political subservience to a political superior. The Federal Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition proclaims that there can be no such thing as citizenship established due to birth.
No one, certainly no one in the United States, becomes a citizen thereof due to their birth here. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that declares anyone to be a citizen of the United States, due to birth or otherwise! Pay attention to the words! Not to what you have been indoctrinated to believe by the government’s indoctrination centers known as public schools.
In regard to “your” birth certificate; it is simply NOT yours! At the time of your birth you had no ability to participate in the selection of the name you would be called by; neither did you have any participation in the entry of that name on any document or the filing of that document with the government.
As it was (most likely) your parents who came up with the name and, provided that name and other information, which was, most likely, entered on the BC by a hospital staff member, and then the BC was filed with the government. The point here in, whomever came up with the name would have first claim of ownership of that name. As no parents ever consider that the name of their child is valuable property, no parents ever enter any ownership claim on the BC or any document filed concurrently, if any.
The point here is neither the name on the BC or the BC is your property! Because your parents did not enter any ownership claim in regard to that name, or provide the government office with any updated address information where they could be contacted in regard to the later disposition of the ownership of the name entered on the BC, your parents effectively abandoned their ownership claim to that name, and the name became owned by the state!
Every state has a statute establishing the procedure for the state’s disposition of abandoned property. In Arkansas where I live, it is under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202. Section 202 is a catch all Section that pertains to all abandoned property not specified in the preceding sections. Under Section 202, Arkansas becomes the owner of the name on all birth certificates five years after the last contact of the last known (or unknown) owner. This information was included in the Admission Demands I officially had served on the Arkansas politicians mentioned above. Their failure to deny, established the items as admitted.
As I mentioned herein above, everyone is born politically sovereign and politically independent. No state in this Federation has authority to require any individual born in this country to conform to or obey any of its legislative enactments. None of the states have any authority to require anyone to pay any manner of tax to the state, or to apply for or be issued a license to drive, to practice medicine, to be an electrician or plumber! None of this is my mere opinion! It is all supported by simple reasoning. The Constitution has no authority over anyone unless and until the Sovereign born individual volunteers to submit his or her self to such artificial authority.
Back to the birth certificate. There is no information on any birth certificate that can be used by anyone or any entity, to connect any specific BC to any specific individual. The question begged here is, “As there is no way any BC can be connected to any individual, why then, do all the states require a driver license applicant to present a BC before the state will issue a DL?”
What the DL applicant does, without knowing it, is apply to the state asking the state to issue a franchise license to the applicant so the applicant could thenceforth, use that state owned name as the applicant’s “true legal name”. This is commonly referred to by those in the Freedom Movement as the “straw man”. I, myself, do not use this term. I do not use any name derived from a BC as all such names are owned by the state and ownership thereof can never be acquired by the individual whose birth was recorded on any BC, because the state became the owner of that name (NOT the child!), under the state’s abandoned property statute. This was also established as admitted in the Admission Demands served on the four Arkansas politicians.
Anyone filing a copyright claim on a name derived from a BC could be prosecuted for stealing state owned property.
Thereafter, any time the “franchisee” engages in any activity using that state owned name, the franchisee is required to comply with the state’s rules.
The presentation of the BC actually has nothing what-so-ever to do with the issuing of the DL. The same procedure would be followed if the applicant informed the DL issuing clerk the applicant was wanting to apply to be issued a state ID card. Same outcome.
The salient point here is the state cannot issue a DL or any other manner of license to anyone until the applicant volunteers his or her self into a subservient relationship to the state. That is, the state does not have standing to require any free born Sovereign individual to comply with any state statute until and unless the Sovereign born individual voluntarily gives up his or her sovereignty by initiating an application to the state to be issued a franchise to function under that state owned name.
The belief that when a mother records the birth of her baby on a BC and files that BC, that the mother is giving over ownership of her baby over to the state is totally silly. Children are not owned by their parents, children are not property. The state is able to exercise unlimited control over children because the state has unlimited control over the parents, who have volunteered themselves into servitude to the state through their application to the state to be issued a franchise license to use the state owned name on “their” BC, which was never “”theirs”.
Now, back to the eligibility of individuals to serve of a Common Law Grand Jury. In order to have standing to sit on such jury the individual must be Sovereign. As I hope all readers can understand from what you just read, there is zero possibility that anyone who has presented a BC to be issued a DL, can claim or be presumed to be, of The Sovereign People of the United States or of The Sovereign People of any State.
This could very well be the reason why the New York State Legislature assumed the duties of the Common Law Grand Jury, as maintained by New York judge, A. Gail Prudenti; because the legislators presumed there would not be any Sovereign People in New York to serve on any such Grand Juries.
This also applies to any application of the Bill of Rights. It is clearly stated in five of them that they apply only to the People. The word “citizen” is noticeably absent from the Bill of Rights.
The state, however, does have a very serious problem with the foregoing. The state’s seduction of everyone into political subservience has been accomplished fraudulently, and is, therefore, VOID! NOT VOIDABLE, VOID! However, in order for it to become void, the individual must become aware of the fraud and take appropriate action – which does NOT include filing any manner of rescission documents with any government entity! What we must do is quite simple, place the burden of proof on the accuser. This is simple when a Sovereign is being prosecuted or sued, not quite as easy when the Sovereign is asserting is position to serve on a Common Law Grand Jury.
No matter that John of New York is going to create a universal Declaration to include with future filings, wherein it is going to be asserted that all members of the CLGJ are of The Sovereign People of New York, I contend he must present with that universal declaration, a blank copy of the Declaration executed by each individual jury member so that the judge to whom such filings have been presented can be informed of what the CLGJ members have sworn to:
The following Declaration:
To all whom may be concerned, I, John Smith, to the best of my knowledge, having been born on the portion of the North American continent claimed by the united States of America to be under the political dominion thereof, more particularly in that area recognized as being under the political dominion of New York State (edit state as appropriate); having been born politically free and politically independent. I claim to have been born of the Posterity of the People of the united States as they established and designated themselves in the Preamble to the Constitution of the united States of America; do hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the Common Law, that I have never ever willingly, knowingly,and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial political entities, united States of America or New York State or State of New York. or any other member State of this Federation.
If there should be any evidence to the contrary, let it be hereby established, that any such evidence would only be in existence due to fraudulent indoctrination widely promulgated and instilled in unwitting children by dishonest unscrupulous criminally minded thugs, who had the intent of surreptitiously stealing the freedom of everyone born on this continent, and is therefore, not voidable, but totally VOID and of no effect!
And, any documents that might be ascribed to me, are lawfully authorized under the universal Law of Necessity, as the fruit of the fraud set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof. And such documents, if any, constitute no subservient status of me to any political superior.
I am Sovereign! And, I am of The Sovereign People of New Your State.
Signed on this ______ day of May, in the year 2014
Nunc Pro Tunk to an appropriate date of 2013 or otherwise___________
______________________________________________________
John Smith, Member, Common Law Grand Jury, New York State
Back to my current discourse.
After getting off the four way call with John, and reading more carefully all the eight documents (links presented below), I became greatly concerned about the NYCLGJ going forward with its Removal to the federal District Court, for the reasons I have set forth herein above, being that the charges set forth in the filings are totally fraudulent and unwarranted because the NJCLGJ failed to include in any of its filings any manner of Declaration establishing the members of that GJ had political standing to be assigned to serve on or even establish any such Jury.
I decided I would call in on the New York conference call on Monday evening and listen to hear what John was going to say about this issue. In the meantime I logged in on the National Liberty Alliance web site and joined, to establish my standing to comment of the manner the Grand Jury was proceeding.
After that I called in on the Monday night conference call. I did not use the site as I was not familiar with how that works, so I just dialed in on my phone.
At the beginning John mentioned his conversation with me about establishing the status of individuals to sit on the GJs but he did not mention me, which was fine, not an issue at all. However I was concerned in that he said he was going to include that Universal Declaration with the Removal of the case to the Federal Court. I think this is a serious mistake, leaving the GJ open for serious reprisals. I contend that all of the previous filings must be redone, with apologies to the New York judges for the GJ’s failure to properly present the standing of its members before going off half cocked and accusing the judges of all manner of misconduct.
As the call progressed I just listened, more than somewhat disappointed at the waste of time on inane topics.
During John’s opening comments he had mentioned the importance of jurisdiction, but seemed to be failing to apply that to the prior filings of the NYGJ, so I decided to press *6, so I could comment on that. There were several callers ahead of me but I finally came up. The first thing I mentioned was a detailed explanation of my success in federal Court in 1970 against the IRS, for the purpose of addressing standing. When I then went to mention the need to reconsider the filings that had been rejected, to re-file them with a Declaration of Status, John kept cutting me off and talking over me to prevent me from informing all the callers of how the NYGJ had screwed up and jeopardized the entire movement.
John was so obnoxious I finally gave up, called him an IDIOT and hung up.
I them went back on the Alliance website and found I had been blocked from any access except my account. Any other place I went to I was confronted with an “access denied” notice.
However, before that had happened, before I logged in, I had gone to the Arkansas page and discovered that my name had been removed from the Arkansas page as a county organizer. It was after that that I logged in and was confronted with the access denied notice.
I have been writing this all day, for about seven hours, non-stop. A few minutes ago I attempted to log into the Alliance web site and was able to access the site, but not log in using my user name, email address or password. When I accessed the Arkansas page my name was no longer there.
I then attempted to re-join. After I entered all the info and clicked “enter”, I received a notice that there was an error and I should re-try in 2990 seconds – that is more than 49 minutes. However, I was still on the info entry page and all my info was still there, so I clicked enter again and this time the membership went through and I received the confirmation email. I opened that and clicked on the link and was taken back to the Alliance page where I was able to put up a picture of me. Additionally, my name is now back on the Arkansas page as a county coordinator with phone number.
So it is apparent that John changed his mind about kicking me off, however he may not have. Someone certainly did remove all my info from the site. Who would have access to do that other than John, or someone on his instructions?
I am very concerned as to how those who did the outstanding research to present all the detailed CLGJ court cases and SCOTUS info could inadvertently and unintentionally fail to know the importance of including some manner of declaration of standing as part of every filing presented to any court.
To me this is at the minimum a reason to be greatly concerned about who it is that is managing these failed filings!
I strongly advise everyone involved to consider what I have presented here, particularly the importance of backing off on the Removal of the New York issue to the Federal Court. I strongly contend that everything done in NY needs to be redone, as I wrote above, with sincere apologies and begging for forgiveness of all those on the “defendants list”.
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
For those of us interested in a peaceful resolution to our problems with the present corrupt court system via Common Law, I think this is absolutely a MUST READ. Is there a way we can support Eric? Anything we can do to offer our help? . . . ~J
It is my belief that such a document as the following and especially the Declaration I highlighted below, should be elaborated and properly adapted in all countries' constitutions and legal systems by concerned and awakened intellectuals , lawyers and constitutional professors , to the benefit of the Peoples already ridden and dominated by the NWO , the Agenda 21 and its long hand MONSANTO.
A world wide movement about Common Law and Common Law Grand Juries should manifest even since yesterday!
I only wish that the professionals mentioned above ,would have had read the Agenda 21 , or the MONSANTO 'diaries and agendas' or all of them , at least once, till now (in my country). Regretfully , I have not found this to be even relative to the minimum. But yet again, I might be wrong. m.l.p.
The following Declaration:
To all whom may be concerned, I, John Smith, to the best of my knowledge, having been born on the portion of the North American continent claimed by the united States of America to be under the political dominion thereof, more particularly in that area recognized as being under the political dominion of New York State (edit state as appropriate); having been born politically free and politically independent. I claim to have been born of the Posterity of the People of the united States as they established and designated themselves in the Preamble to the Constitution of the united States of America; do hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the Common Law, that I have never ever willingly, knowingly,and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial political entities, united States of America or New York State or State of New York. or any other member State of this Federation.
If there should be any evidence to the contrary, let it be hereby established, that any such evidence would only be in existence due to fraudulent indoctrination widely promulgated and instilled in unwitting children by dishonest unscrupulous criminally minded thugs, who had the intent of surreptitiously stealing the freedom of everyone born on this continent, and is therefore, not voidable, but totally VOID and of no effect!
And, any documents that might be ascribed to me, are lawfully authorized under the universal Law of Necessity, as the fruit of the fraud set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof. And such documents, if any, constitute no subservient status of me to any political superior.
I am Sovereign! And, I am of The Sovereign People of New Your State.
Signed on this ______ day of May, in the year 2014
Nunc Pro Tunk to an appropriate date of 2013 or otherwise___________
Hi Jean
I expect that many members of your Blog are involved with or if not, are very interested and concerned about how the New York Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) is being ignored by the New York State Courts. I think this is related to what Paul Craig Roberts is advocating.
Let it be understood here at the outset. These are very perilous times for our Freedom. I could not be more convinced that this Common Law Grand Jury movement is the one and only BEST single means whereby we might be able to take back control over our government through peaceful means!
I am concerned that the failures of the New York Grand Jury have been caused by infiltration of those who are intent on destroying The United States, and who have been acting with such intention since the day Thomas Paine published his book, “Common Sense”!
During the last week of May my attention was brought to the CLGJ events in New York, and I was provided with copies of eight of the New York Grand Jury’s most significant filings, which I have printed and very carefully read (links to those documents are included herein below).
One point before I expand on my concerns, can any of you imagine that the Justices of all the new York Supreme Courts would refuse to address this issue if those presenting it had not given those judges an out? I am not suggesting in any way that any of those judges, or any other judges, are enthused about the rising Common Law Grand Jury movement, however, those judges are certainly NOT stupid, and are not going to refuse to address this issue if properly presented.
Can there be any doubt that the Justices of these New York Supreme Courts have free telephone access to any level of appellate court judge that they might consider it appropriate to consult with before the NY judges rejected these CLGJ filings?
Can there be any doubt that the Federal Courts are going to uphold the rejections of the New York Courts?
Please read on for my in depth analysis as to why this CLGJ movement is failing, and what must be done to get it back on track before it is totally destroyed. As it now stands, I will not be surprised if those CLGJ members who participated in the “indictment” of these NY judges are criminally prosecuted and/or civilly sued.
For those members who are not all that familiar with my legal experiences, I functioned as a member of the Common Law Grand Jury of California back in the 1990s, in the Inland San Diego area. I also functioned as a Common Law Notary for about ten years in California, and was involved in the Leroy Schweitzer Montana Freemen Comptroller of the Currency Draft issuing monetary rescue, in which a California woman, Elizabeth Broderick, adopted Leroy’s methods.
I attended Leroy’s seminar in Montana during the time his bunker was under attack by the Feds. I advised Leroy to modify his Draft issuance to include an advisement document that no transaction paid for with such drafts should be finalized (ownership of property transferred), until the Comptroller of the Currency recognized and paid the drafts. I later advised Liz Broderick likewise, but both of them ignored my advice. Both Leroy and Liz were arrested. Leroy died in Federal Prison a few years back.
I created and provided notarized documents to almost a hundred people who had received Drafts from either Leroy or Liz. Some of these drafts were used by people to pay their IRS obligations. The IRS immediately accepted all such presentations, but when the IRS sent them to the Comptroller, they were all rejected and all of those people were prosecuted or subjected to substantial penalties. Because of the information I had included in the presentation documents I had provided, none of my clients had any serious IRS problems. Of course, none of their drafts were honored by the Comptroller, but the disclaimers I had provided them prevented any prosecution or penalties.
Prior to that, back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations. When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.
Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year I have had several people present letters challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or state or federal governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors.
I have also used this defense several times in traffic court and in every occasion the courts have either lost the file or pulled their arrest warrants.
Please take notice that I did NOT deny or admit I was/am a citizen of the United States. I would never do that in any official proceeding. What I did was challenge their ability to prove I had voluntarily submitted myself to the political dominion of their artificial entities. Please pay close attention to my phraseology! I did not say I was challenging the prosecutor to present proof I had volunteered myself into citizenship!
In all my many years of study I have not been able to discover any means by which an individual born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof other than by his voluntary claim. What I have established, and “proved,” by serving Admit or Deny Demands on Arkansas Governor Bebee, Atty. Gen. McDaniels, State Senator Key and State Representative Monty Davenport, is the following:
These Admission Demands, contained about 80 items establishing that the presentation of a birth certificate to be issued a driver license is the surreptitious ploy used by Arkansas (all states), to fraudulently entice free born individuals into political servitude. This is the means by which the governments of this country avoid a violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude established in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. (And in some state constitutions).
Citizenship is not actually the issue, the actual issue is any manner of servitude or subservience that serves to surrender an individual’s naturally birth acquired Sovereignty.
The reason I mention all this in a writing focusing on the CLGJ is because of the importance, the critical importance of “standing”. “Standing” is legalese, a “term of art”, as is the word “People” as used in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights and everywhere in regard to standing to serve on a CLGJ or in any reference to The People of the United States or any state, in regard to those of the Sovereign governing class.
“Standing” has to do with presenting yourself to the court in a way that the court can (must) recognize your authority to present yourself in the “office” you are claiming to hold. On the other hand, in any manner of prosecution, civil or criminal, the opposition must present evidence that it has standing, authority, to hold you accountable to its or the court’s authority. “Standing” has to do with “jurisdiction”. In many of “our” interactions with government this “jurisdiction”, is properly characterized as “political jurisdiction”.
The very first issue in every court event, no matter the purpose of the filing, is the standing of the individual(s) bringing the matter before the court for any action, administrative or judicial. The individual or group, must present to the court, information to establish that the group or individuals comprising the group, are politically qualified, have standing to present themselves in the office they are claiming to hold.
In these Common Law matters, the issue is NOT the standing of the Common Law Jury or the People, the issue is the standing of the individuals who are claiming to have standing to sit in the office of The People. To be eligible, those claiming standing must present some manner of declaration establishing that they are of The Posterity of The Sovereign People of the United States as was established in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution. Or to establish that they are of The Sovereign People of the State where they are asserting such authority.
Or, from another perspective, to simply establish that they have never ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally. having been fully informed of all the negative consequences prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit themselves to the political authority of any manner of artificial government, such as is the United States and or, the State of New York.
Filing documents claiming to be issued from some manner of Common Law Grand Jury does not, in and of itself, establish that such Jury is populated with individuals who are of the Posterity of the Sovereign People of the Preamble or the Sovereign People of the State, properly qualified to sit in the office they are claiming.
If the documents filed fail to set forth and establish the sovereign standing of the members of the CLGJ, then the Judge reviewing such filings cannot “see” the documents! The Judge might very well read the entire document, and I expect he would, because the very last thing he wants to do is reject a document where the filing entity has properly established its standing. I am most certainly NOT asserting that the judge wants to “see” the documents, that is NOT the point. The point is, when the issue is taken up higher, will the court above overrule the judge below? Or expose the rejecting judge to some manner of charges, such have been purported to be charged against all the New York judges, and others, listed in the defendants list included on page 2 of the fifth document included herein below, titled, “NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR CAUSE”.
I am seriously concerned that these charged will be deemed fallacious, frivolous, unwarranted, and constitute a criminal conspiracy to damage the integrity and reputation of the Courts of New York and the Justices thereof. I will Not be surprised to learn that criminal charges and civil suits have been filed against all who participated in preparing and filing these documents, all because the individuals filing them failed to properly document their political standing to present their claim of establishing a Common Law Grand Jury.
I called John of New York last Sunday (June 1, 2014), to bring this issue to his attention. There were two calls. During the first call at about 6:30 pm, I spoke only with John. When I mentioned my concern of the absence of the establishment of standing of the individuals claiming to be the GJ, I was met with considerable resistance. John insisted that the assertion that the documents were presented under the authority of the GJ was sufficient, that there was no need for the individual members to put themselves forward and risk physical retaliation which might befall them due to the seriousness of the charges they had brought against all these judges. John then asked me to call back at 9:30 as he had not yet had dinner. I then informed him that I had written a document I would like to email to him to read before I called back, and John them provided his email address. I sent John that email within five minutes.
In that email I had created a declaration designed for each individual jury member. Due to John’s concern of retaliation, during the time between my calls to John, I reasoned that standing could be established indirectly by including a Declaration that would assert that all the individual jury members had signed declarations establishing that they each had proper standing as Sovereign People, to sit on the GJ. I then sent the following second email to John, in relevant part:
Hi John,
Another way of doing this would be to include a general declaration with all Grand Jury filings certifying that all members of all the Grand Juries of New York State had individually executed declarations establishing that they were of the Posterity of the People of The United States as such as designated them selves in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution and that all members were qualified to sit on the Grand Juries of their counties.
Or similar wording, as appropriate.
They presume everyone acting here is a citizen unless you object. They are presuming all of your GJ members are citizens, not possible to be Sovereign People. You even cited a NY Code section declaring that to be true.
I am, Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone
Then, at 9:30, I called John back, however there were two other men on the call with John, four of us altogether. I met even more resistence from these other men. I was finally able to get them to stop talking over me, trying to explain to me what I already knew, to inform them that I had sent John a second email, at which time John said he had not yet read either of my emails.
I was finally able to get through to them that the reason the New York Courts had rejected their filings was not because of the Courts rejection of the CLGJ or The Sovereignty of the People of New York, but because the CLGJ filings had not included a declaration of the standing of the individuals to sit in that capacity, and that such declaration could be done with a general all inclusive declaration, such as I had sent to John in my second email.
All three finally agreed that they understood and would review what I had presented to be included with their future filings with the United States District Court, whereupon I left the call, considering that I would contact them, at another time to bring to their attention that their failure to include any standing information in their original letter to all the New York judges and also any documents that were rejected before that due to failure to establish standing, would cause all of those previous documents to be defective, and their charges against all those defendants, totally unfounded, and would open the GJ members up for criminal charges and civil suits.
After exiting that call I then went back on line to the source of the eight documents, and downloaded them and printed them all out, reread them making copious notes in regard to the many defects I found therein. Nothing overtly serious but unprofessional and unnecessary to accomplish the cause at hand, which is simply to have the state courts accept and recognize the authority of the Common Law Grand Juries.
In reading through these eight CLGJ documents, the first being a letter the NYCLGJ sent to every New York Supreme Court Judge. No where in this eleven page document is there any explanation or presentation of how those individuals who sent it to those judges had standing to appoint themselves (or be elected) to sit on such GJ.
Additionally, in that letter it is asserted that Article IV, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution guarantees that the Federal Government shall provide a republican form of government to every state. However, no where is there a presentation of any legally or lawfully established description of what it is that constitutes a republican form of government. There is a foot note at the bottom of page 8 of the Fifth Document, being the Notice of Removal To United States District Court For Cause.
However, this foot note is merely a meaning extracted from Black’s Law dictionary, which is nothing more than the opinion of the editors of that questionable “authority”. In this meaning it is asserted that sovereignty is vested in the people and is exercised by them directly or through representatives chosen by the people. Here, in the United Stats, it would seem that sovereignty is exercised by elected representatives, not directly by the people. The population of The People’s Republic of China might have a different view of the meaning of “Republic”.
I am certainly not questioning The People’s authority to exercise sovereignty. It is certainly reasonable that Sovereigns who have assigned their Sovereign authority to representatives to exercise in their stead, could revoke such assignment and re-assume the exercise thereof themselves. However, those individuals making such a revocation, or some portion of it, must present some manner of Declaration wherein they individually set forth and establish their individual standing as Sovereign People, to enable them to claim sanding to exercise such authority. There is no evidence of this in any of these eight documents.
Additionally, the Legislative branch of the Federal Government is created in the body of the Constitution. The People’s authority to create and operate a grand Jury is established in the Bill of Rights, therefore the GJ establishment would supersede any Legislative authority of the Legislature to supplant the GJ, especially when the manner of suplantation was accomplished through fraudulent inducement using the birth certificate driver license scam.
Now, in regard to that BC/DL issue, those attempting to re-establish the CLGJ must contend with and overcome this issue. I expect everyone of the members of every Common Law Grand Jury in this country, when they became sixteen years of age, presented “their” birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license. Most of the information prevalent among the freedom Community in regard to the driver license and the birth certificate is erroneous.
What is greatly missed in all the various explanations and assumptions in regard to an individual’s relationship to the government, is the Basic Fundamental Politically Independent Sovereign status of every individual when they are born. No one is born subservient to any other! This is NOT merely my opinion, this is clearly acknowledged in the prohibition of involuntary servitude set forth in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. “Involuntary servitude shall not exist in the United States…”.
There is no denying, it is a self evident fact, that “citizen”, the word, carries with it an inherent acknowledgment of political subservience to a political superior. The Federal Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition proclaims that there can be no such thing as citizenship established due to birth.
No one, certainly no one in the United States, becomes a citizen thereof due to their birth here. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that declares anyone to be a citizen of the United States, due to birth or otherwise! Pay attention to the words! Not to what you have been indoctrinated to believe by the government’s indoctrination centers known as public schools.
In regard to “your” birth certificate; it is simply NOT yours! At the time of your birth you had no ability to participate in the selection of the name you would be called by; neither did you have any participation in the entry of that name on any document or the filing of that document with the government.
As it was (most likely) your parents who came up with the name and, provided that name and other information, which was, most likely, entered on the BC by a hospital staff member, and then the BC was filed with the government. The point here in, whomever came up with the name would have first claim of ownership of that name. As no parents ever consider that the name of their child is valuable property, no parents ever enter any ownership claim on the BC or any document filed concurrently, if any.
The point here is neither the name on the BC or the BC is your property! Because your parents did not enter any ownership claim in regard to that name, or provide the government office with any updated address information where they could be contacted in regard to the later disposition of the ownership of the name entered on the BC, your parents effectively abandoned their ownership claim to that name, and the name became owned by the state!
Every state has a statute establishing the procedure for the state’s disposition of abandoned property. In Arkansas where I live, it is under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202. Section 202 is a catch all Section that pertains to all abandoned property not specified in the preceding sections. Under Section 202, Arkansas becomes the owner of the name on all birth certificates five years after the last contact of the last known (or unknown) owner. This information was included in the Admission Demands I officially had served on the Arkansas politicians mentioned above. Their failure to deny, established the items as admitted.
As I mentioned herein above, everyone is born politically sovereign and politically independent. No state in this Federation has authority to require any individual born in this country to conform to or obey any of its legislative enactments. None of the states have any authority to require anyone to pay any manner of tax to the state, or to apply for or be issued a license to drive, to practice medicine, to be an electrician or plumber! None of this is my mere opinion! It is all supported by simple reasoning. The Constitution has no authority over anyone unless and until the Sovereign born individual volunteers to submit his or her self to such artificial authority.
Back to the birth certificate. There is no information on any birth certificate that can be used by anyone or any entity, to connect any specific BC to any specific individual. The question begged here is, “As there is no way any BC can be connected to any individual, why then, do all the states require a driver license applicant to present a BC before the state will issue a DL?”
What the DL applicant does, without knowing it, is apply to the state asking the state to issue a franchise license to the applicant so the applicant could thenceforth, use that state owned name as the applicant’s “true legal name”. This is commonly referred to by those in the Freedom Movement as the “straw man”. I, myself, do not use this term. I do not use any name derived from a BC as all such names are owned by the state and ownership thereof can never be acquired by the individual whose birth was recorded on any BC, because the state became the owner of that name (NOT the child!), under the state’s abandoned property statute. This was also established as admitted in the Admission Demands served on the four Arkansas politicians.
Anyone filing a copyright claim on a name derived from a BC could be prosecuted for stealing state owned property.
Thereafter, any time the “franchisee” engages in any activity using that state owned name, the franchisee is required to comply with the state’s rules.
The presentation of the BC actually has nothing what-so-ever to do with the issuing of the DL. The same procedure would be followed if the applicant informed the DL issuing clerk the applicant was wanting to apply to be issued a state ID card. Same outcome.
The salient point here is the state cannot issue a DL or any other manner of license to anyone until the applicant volunteers his or her self into a subservient relationship to the state. That is, the state does not have standing to require any free born Sovereign individual to comply with any state statute until and unless the Sovereign born individual voluntarily gives up his or her sovereignty by initiating an application to the state to be issued a franchise to function under that state owned name.
The belief that when a mother records the birth of her baby on a BC and files that BC, that the mother is giving over ownership of her baby over to the state is totally silly. Children are not owned by their parents, children are not property. The state is able to exercise unlimited control over children because the state has unlimited control over the parents, who have volunteered themselves into servitude to the state through their application to the state to be issued a franchise license to use the state owned name on “their” BC, which was never “”theirs”.
Now, back to the eligibility of individuals to serve of a Common Law Grand Jury. In order to have standing to sit on such jury the individual must be Sovereign. As I hope all readers can understand from what you just read, there is zero possibility that anyone who has presented a BC to be issued a DL, can claim or be presumed to be, of The Sovereign People of the United States or of The Sovereign People of any State.
This could very well be the reason why the New York State Legislature assumed the duties of the Common Law Grand Jury, as maintained by New York judge, A. Gail Prudenti; because the legislators presumed there would not be any Sovereign People in New York to serve on any such Grand Juries.
This also applies to any application of the Bill of Rights. It is clearly stated in five of them that they apply only to the People. The word “citizen” is noticeably absent from the Bill of Rights.
The state, however, does have a very serious problem with the foregoing. The state’s seduction of everyone into political subservience has been accomplished fraudulently, and is, therefore, VOID! NOT VOIDABLE, VOID! However, in order for it to become void, the individual must become aware of the fraud and take appropriate action – which does NOT include filing any manner of rescission documents with any government entity! What we must do is quite simple, place the burden of proof on the accuser. This is simple when a Sovereign is being prosecuted or sued, not quite as easy when the Sovereign is asserting is position to serve on a Common Law Grand Jury.
No matter that John of New York is going to create a universal Declaration to include with future filings, wherein it is going to be asserted that all members of the CLGJ are of The Sovereign People of New York, I contend he must present with that universal declaration, a blank copy of the Declaration executed by each individual jury member so that the judge to whom such filings have been presented can be informed of what the CLGJ members have sworn to:
The following Declaration:
To all whom may be concerned, I, John Smith, to the best of my knowledge, having been born on the portion of the North American continent claimed by the united States of America to be under the political dominion thereof, more particularly in that area recognized as being under the political dominion of New York State (edit state as appropriate); having been born politically free and politically independent. I claim to have been born of the Posterity of the People of the united States as they established and designated themselves in the Preamble to the Constitution of the united States of America; do hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the Common Law, that I have never ever willingly, knowingly,and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial political entities, united States of America or New York State or State of New York. or any other member State of this Federation.
If there should be any evidence to the contrary, let it be hereby established, that any such evidence would only be in existence due to fraudulent indoctrination widely promulgated and instilled in unwitting children by dishonest unscrupulous criminally minded thugs, who had the intent of surreptitiously stealing the freedom of everyone born on this continent, and is therefore, not voidable, but totally VOID and of no effect!
And, any documents that might be ascribed to me, are lawfully authorized under the universal Law of Necessity, as the fruit of the fraud set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof. And such documents, if any, constitute no subservient status of me to any political superior.
I am Sovereign! And, I am of The Sovereign People of New Your State.
Signed on this ______ day of May, in the year 2014
Nunc Pro Tunk to an appropriate date of 2013 or otherwise___________
______________________________________________________
John Smith, Member, Common Law Grand Jury, New York State
Back to my current discourse.
After getting off the four way call with John, and reading more carefully all the eight documents (links presented below), I became greatly concerned about the NYCLGJ going forward with its Removal to the federal District Court, for the reasons I have set forth herein above, being that the charges set forth in the filings are totally fraudulent and unwarranted because the NJCLGJ failed to include in any of its filings any manner of Declaration establishing the members of that GJ had political standing to be assigned to serve on or even establish any such Jury.
I decided I would call in on the New York conference call on Monday evening and listen to hear what John was going to say about this issue. In the meantime I logged in on the National Liberty Alliance web site and joined, to establish my standing to comment of the manner the Grand Jury was proceeding.
After that I called in on the Monday night conference call. I did not use the site as I was not familiar with how that works, so I just dialed in on my phone.
At the beginning John mentioned his conversation with me about establishing the status of individuals to sit on the GJs but he did not mention me, which was fine, not an issue at all. However I was concerned in that he said he was going to include that Universal Declaration with the Removal of the case to the Federal Court. I think this is a serious mistake, leaving the GJ open for serious reprisals. I contend that all of the previous filings must be redone, with apologies to the New York judges for the GJ’s failure to properly present the standing of its members before going off half cocked and accusing the judges of all manner of misconduct.
As the call progressed I just listened, more than somewhat disappointed at the waste of time on inane topics.
During John’s opening comments he had mentioned the importance of jurisdiction, but seemed to be failing to apply that to the prior filings of the NYGJ, so I decided to press *6, so I could comment on that. There were several callers ahead of me but I finally came up. The first thing I mentioned was a detailed explanation of my success in federal Court in 1970 against the IRS, for the purpose of addressing standing. When I then went to mention the need to reconsider the filings that had been rejected, to re-file them with a Declaration of Status, John kept cutting me off and talking over me to prevent me from informing all the callers of how the NYGJ had screwed up and jeopardized the entire movement.
John was so obnoxious I finally gave up, called him an IDIOT and hung up.
I them went back on the Alliance website and found I had been blocked from any access except my account. Any other place I went to I was confronted with an “access denied” notice.
However, before that had happened, before I logged in, I had gone to the Arkansas page and discovered that my name had been removed from the Arkansas page as a county organizer. It was after that that I logged in and was confronted with the access denied notice.
I have been writing this all day, for about seven hours, non-stop. A few minutes ago I attempted to log into the Alliance web site and was able to access the site, but not log in using my user name, email address or password. When I accessed the Arkansas page my name was no longer there.
I then attempted to re-join. After I entered all the info and clicked “enter”, I received a notice that there was an error and I should re-try in 2990 seconds – that is more than 49 minutes. However, I was still on the info entry page and all my info was still there, so I clicked enter again and this time the membership went through and I received the confirmation email. I opened that and clicked on the link and was taken back to the Alliance page where I was able to put up a picture of me. Additionally, my name is now back on the Arkansas page as a county coordinator with phone number.
So it is apparent that John changed his mind about kicking me off, however he may not have. Someone certainly did remove all my info from the site. Who would have access to do that other than John, or someone on his instructions?
I am very concerned as to how those who did the outstanding research to present all the detailed CLGJ court cases and SCOTUS info could inadvertently and unintentionally fail to know the importance of including some manner of declaration of standing as part of every filing presented to any court.
To me this is at the minimum a reason to be greatly concerned about who it is that is managing these failed filings!
I strongly advise everyone involved to consider what I have presented here, particularly the importance of backing off on the Removal of the New York issue to the Federal Court. I strongly contend that everything done in NY needs to be redone, as I wrote above, with sincere apologies and begging for forgiveness of all those on the “defendants list”.
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone