Four Winds 10 - NewsMATERIAL FROM DOUGLAS DUFF Home About Four Winds Our Mission Phoenix Archives Phoenix Journals Unpublished Journals The Spectrum Newspapers The Law of the Creation and the Laws of God THE LAWS OF GOD AND THE CREATION by Patrick H. Bellringer Bellringer's Corner Hello Central People of the Lie Vital Articles Writings Meditation Poetry Songs Prayers Anne Bellringer Nesara News/Casper Updates History Government Banking Homeland Security Fraud 9/11 U.S. Gov. Israel NWO U.S. Constitution War Judicial Corporate US Obama Gov. Law Enforcement

Immigration History Zionism American European World Middle East Asia Cosmic Health Aleternative Medicine Africa Disease Vaccinations Food Drugs Crime Morality Racism Prisons Abuse Fraud Mind Control Safety More Spiritual Inspirational Hatonn Sananda Germain General Channelings Earth/Transition Prayer Thoughts Environment Humans Chemtrails Nuclear Pollution Plants/Animals Earth Changes Weather/Climate Disaster Relief Agriculture

Business Economy Currency Corp. Fraud Corp. Growth Science Energy/Free Energy DNA/GMO Computers New Technologies/Inventions Cloning More Business Education Entertainment Environment Media Peace Freedom Projects Religion Cults Science Technology Space Spectrum Spiritual Valley Of Radiance Media Photo Galleries Photo Search Slideshows Video Galleries

Search

Custom Search Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMaced onianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpan ishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish

Powered by

Translate

MATERIAL FROM DOUGLAS DUFFMore Recent Stories A PRAYER FOR AMERICA THE DIVINE PLAN, PART XII: A TIME OF TRANSITION THE DIVINE PLAN, PART XI: AT A GRAND CROSSROADS 'HELLO, CENTRAL!' A FREEMAN ON THE LAND! CASPER OPINION: AUGUST 11, 2011 THE SACRED SPIRIT WITHIN MITAKUYE OYASIN (for all my relationswhich is ALL) PLEIADES CONNECTION VOL. VI PHOENIX JOURNAL #34 - CHAPTER 4 THE SACRED SPIRIT WITHIN MITAKUYE OYASIN (for all my relationswhich is ALL) PLEIADES CONNECTION SERIES VI PHOENIX JOURNAL #35 - CHAPTER 3 APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST OBAMACARE INSURANCE Mark Farago plays Liszt Consolation No.3 in D flat MONSANTO PREYS ON POPULARITY OF OMEGA-3s BY EVELOPING GMO SOYBEAN THAT PRODUCES FAKE FISH OIL Peter, Paul & Mary - If I Had A Hammer South Africa is not going to nationalize its mines - Report DEATHS OF SEAL TEAM 6 EXPOSED Peter Paul & Mary - Blowin in the wind A Parasite On The World The Assault on Online Privacy FT: SEC Investigating S&P Employees for Insider Trading Over Downgrade of US Debt Schriever air base space wing gets new commander What's to be Done With the Jews? The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom

Object 1

Most Emailed BAKING SODA AND MAPLE SYRUP CANCER TREATMENT (Updated March 13, 2010) The Jewish hand behind Internet - Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Yahoo!, MySpace, eBay... Photos of George W. Bush 'Drunk As A Monkey' At the Olympics US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig

Douglas Duff

Object 2

INDEX 01 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINEE 02 NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE 03a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCOVER DISHONEST ACTS 03b SUMMARY OF INTENDED DIRECTION 04a REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY 04b RELEASE OF POWER OF PROPERTY 05 POWERS OF ATTORNEY COVER LETTER I COVER LETTER II EXHIBIT A COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT A2 COPY OF BACK OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT B PHOTO COPY OF SS CARD, DRIVER LICENSE EXHIBIT C COPY OF DD 214 (if discharged from military) EXHIBIT D COPY OF HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA (or where it can be validated) EXHIBIT E TRUST RECEIPTS, 89 CJS EXHIBIT F DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CHARGING ORDER EXHIBIT G PARSON EXHIBIT H TESTAMENTARY AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT I LETTER ROGATORY EXHIBIT J DIPLOMATIC PROTEST EXHIBIT K INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES EXHIBIT L DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF VALUE EXHIBIT M INLAND EMPIRE UNDER MOYTOY EXHIBIT N FIRST CORPORATE DIPLOMATIC PROTEST EXHIBIT O CHRISTIAN APPELLATION EXHIBIT P UCC 1 SHOWING LIEN CREDITOR EXHIBIT Q1 BENEFICIARY TO THE ORIGINAL TRUST

EXHIBIT Q2 GOVERNMENT IS TRUSTEE, NOT BENEFICIARY EXHIBIT R CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK EXHIBIT S CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT T NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT EXHIBIT U NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION/REPATRIATION EXHIBIT V GRANTOR INJURED BEYOND DAMAGE RECOVERY EXHIBIT W CLAIM OF POSTLIMINY EXHIBIT X DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE EXHIBIT Y GRANTOR NOT A FRANCHISE EXHIBIT Z DIVERSION ORDER, STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING ******************************************************************8 EXHIBIT Y Grantor NOT a Franchise Grantor explicitly denies being a Franchise, or any part of a franchise, for the benefit of any corporate function, action, body, government, or other entitlement outside of Grantors own autonomous Free Inhabitancy, therefore, not subject to any fiction of law or corporation, to wit: In PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. PROPRIETORS OF, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) 36 U.S. 420 (Pet.) we find that "...where there is a capacity to take and hold; the only thing wanting is the franchise of succession, so that the property of the society may pass to successors instead of heirs. Termes de la Ley 123; 1 Bl. Com. 368-72. This and other franchises are the ligaments which unite a body of men into one, and knit them together as a natural person (4 Co. 65 a); creating a corporation, an invisible incorporeal being, a metaphysical person (2 Pet. 223); existing only in contemplation of law, but having the properties of individuality ..." Then we find that, "It is the object and effect of the incorporation, to give to the artificial person the same capacity and rights as a natural person can have..." and, "...they can take and enjoy property to the extent of their franchises as fully as an individual..." Please note near the beginning in bold "...where there is a capacity to take and hold;..." is a stipulation that only applies to the ability to "take and hold [TITLE]". Claimant has no record or evidence that any corporation has a "Right of Soil", except the State Republic chartered. And, remember, the People, not persons, are the State. Now we have discovered that a Corporation is a person, yes, even a natural person. Every "person", or those administering for said "person" outside their corporate "body" has the responsibility of acting and reacting within the parameters of "Common Law", which governs the natural Man. It is understood that all "persons" are governed by statutes, codes, rules, and regulations, but the obligations for corporate, privileged "persons" cannot be enforced upon any Private Man. Wrongful actions by any corporate entity that bring upon Private Man injury shall be recompensed with remedy under Common Law. So with that in mind, Libellees have given the person, agency, and etc., knowledge! Under USC Title 42 1986. Action for neglect to prevent , it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done and having power to prevent or aid in preventing Neglects or refuses so to do shall be liable to the party injured ********************************************************************* DIVERSION ORDER STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING Date: August 15, 2011

To: PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY COURT __________________________________ __________________________________ (address) RECONSIGNMENT OR DIVERSION ORDER Straight Bill of Lading Dated: 12/19.2011 Number: Lien Notice ID 1563097981219/Case Number 000250752 Consignor: IRS AGENTS Consigned to: Little-John: Stewart The undersigned consignor under your straight bill of lading number 000250752, dated 12/19/2011, issued by you to CONTROLLER, OF MONTGOMERY________________ (address), __________ (city), ___________ (county), ___________ (state), covering goods described in the bill of lading as ____________, hereby instructs you to disregard the original instructions as to place of delivery and recipient on the bill and to divert and deliver the goods to __________, of _______________________ (address), __________ (city), _________ (county), _________ (state), at _________ (location). The undersigned will pay all reasonable costs and charges of this diversion on your reasonable request, and warrants its authority to effect this diversion or reconsignment. The undersigned shall indemnify and hold you harmless for any loss, damage, or expenses in the event the diversion or reconsignment is challenged. ____________________________________________ Little-John: Stewart ******************************************************************************** EXHIBIT X Demand for Full Disclosure Claimant/Grantor does herein order all de facto agencies of the UNITED STATES government and all related and subordinate agencies to disclose the True and Complete Facts and Details of all monetary, currency, and negotiable instrument investments pertaining to the accounts of Grantor that are being, or have been, withheld from ready access by Grantor to be released immediately to Grantor, and avoid Fraud and Deception, as per:

Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud.Universal Inv. Co v Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P 2d 485, 127 Ariz. 213. (Ariz App 1980)

Where one under duty of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar reliance intrustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make fully and truthful disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment. Stewart v Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P 2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34. (Ariz. 1937) EXHIBIT T NOTICE OF BIRTHRIGHT AND RIGHT OF SOIL

TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS COME, be informed, take Notice: The married parents of this living man, LittleJohn: Stewart, hereinafter referred to as Claimant, celebrated Claimants Nativity on September 09, 1944, on Douglas County, Republic of Maryland, Claimant being the sixth of eight children, conceived and born, under lawful Christian parentage, introduced and witnessed, with entry into the Family Bible, into the Birthright of Jacob/Israel, bearing to this day and forward the Birthright and Promise of Claimant's Creator, Yahweh. Claimant declares full Rights as a Legitimate Child under the Law. From Bouvier's Law Dictionary; NATURAL CHILDREN. In the phraseology of the English or American law, natural children are children born out of wedlock, or bastards, and are distinguished from legitimate children; Claimant makes known to the entire world that; Claimant is a Living Man with Standing upon the Land, being of Indigenous Ancient Egyptian Moor and Washtawataa descent and stock, upon the American terra firma, within the surveyed geographical boundaries of the organic State of Maryland and in capita holder in due course by Birthright, born a legitimate child, in the image of his Heavenly Father who is Creator of all that is, and by way of this Notice of Birthright, assures all that Claimant is a living man of substance and surety and able to give credit where Claimant chooses, in any amount, without limits, but without limited liability. Claimant is NOT a corporation, fiction, legal entity, legal fiction, debt, debtor (dead deador, debtor), or any other juristic "person". Claimant plainly declares that he was birthed of the water from his Mothers womb upon the dry land of the Nation of Maryland; and that the water from his Mothers womb was the only water whereby Claimant was born. Claimant explicitly denies any association with the berthing of a new vessel in the world of commerce other than Claimants own person, yielding nothing to the assumption that any vessel owned by any legal entity, legal fiction, or corporate association that may have been created at, or near, the same time had, or has, any semblance of association with Claimant. With this knowledge of the Truth, this Claimant, offers testimony before any Juristic Society, Counsel of Men, or any fiction of character, that Claimant is not "bonded or bound" to any, save Claimant's Master, THE MOST HIGH ANU, the only begotten sons, who became Claimant's surety by way of Blood Sacrifice at the Price of thirty pieces of silver (a commercial transaction), given into the hand of a hired liar and deceiver (a fiction), working in conjunction with the Courts of that day, an estimated 2000 years ago. Therefore, Claimant cannot be induced into any "body politic" contrary with sound Christian Doctrine instilled upon Claimants conscience. This Notice of Birthright is offered as Corrective NOTICE that any Certificates of Birth entered into the fictional corporate world of commerce is based in fraud, propagated in fraud, brought forward in deceit, and joined in deliberate and malicious trespass upon the conscience and free will of a man bearing the Birthright of Jacob/Israel and Right of Soil. This NOTICE of Birthright is Fair Notice and Warning for any and all Actors, Fictions, and Corporate Representatives that the Natal Soil of this Child of the Egyptian/Moor Birthright was NOT a "Port of Entry" for any newly berthed "Legal Entity" to be entered into the fictional, factional or corporate marketplace as bond, surety, equity, futures, chattel, stock, or trade material, and stands as correction of any assumption, presumption, or position in any corporate realm to the contrary. As all jurisdiction flows from Right of Soil, please take Notice of the following: POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845), "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed... ...[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted... ...Maryland is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law..." Claimant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined. ********************************************************************* . EXHIBIT R CLAIM OF FAMOUS MARK

Claimant herein declares his Claim of Famous Mark to be his own and not the property of any other. TITLE 15, CH 22, SUB CH III 1125 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden Release date: 2011-08-15 (a) Civil action (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another persons goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. (2) As used in this subsection, the term any person includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement [idem sonanse] under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. (b) Importation Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized. (c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks (1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another persons commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to (A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;

(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of December 11, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. [Berth registry is the principal register of the Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.] (2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 1116 of this title unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owners reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark [NOTE: birth/berth certificate is worth "how much??" [11 million credits] on world trade market, and, how many "good works" - "goods" have you provided to society?]. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 1117 (a) and 1118 of this title, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity. (3) The ownership by a person ["personam", not "in persona"] of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement. (4) The following shall not be actionable under this section: (A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark. (B) Noncommercial use of a mark. (C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary. (d) Cyberpiracy prevention (1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section706 of title 18 or section220506 of title 36. (B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to (I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III) the persons prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (IV) the persons bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name; (V) the persons intent to divert consumers from the mark owners online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; (VI) the persons offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the persons prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VII) the persons provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the persons intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the persons prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VIII) the persons registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and (IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the persons domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section. (ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. (C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. (D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrants authorized licensee. (E) As used in this paragraph, the term traffics in refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration. (2) (A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if (i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c) of this section; and (ii) the court finds that the owner (I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or (II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by

(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and (bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action. (B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process. (C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which (i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or (ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court. (D) (i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall (I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the courts control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and (II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court. (ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order. (3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable. (4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam. COPYRIGHT NOTICE OF TRADE-NAME, TRADE-MARK Copyright Notice: All rights reserved regarding common-law copyright of trade-name/trade-mark, LITTLE JOHN STEWARTas well as any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of said tradename/trademarkCommon Law Copyright 1965 upon attainment of age of majority by Little-John: Stewart. Said common-law tradename/trade-mark, LITTLE JOHN STEWART, may neither be used, nor reproduced, neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Little-John: Stewart, hereinafter Secured Party. With the Intent of being contractually bound, any juristic person, as well as the agent of said juristic person, shall display, nor otherwise use in any manner, any of the common-law trade-name/trade-mark LITTLE JOHN STEWART, nor the common-law copyright described herein, nor any derivative of, nor any variation in the spelling of, LITTLE JOHN STEWART, without the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Secured Party, as signified by Secured Partys signature in blue ink. Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives consent for any unauthorized use of LITTLE JOHN STEWART, and all such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Secured Party is not now, nor has Secured Party ever been, an accommodation party, nor a surety, for the purported debtor, i.e., LITTLE JOHN STEWART nor for any derivative of, nor for any variation in the spelling of, said name, nor for any other juristic person, and is so-indemnified and held harmless by Debtor, i.e., LITTLE JOHN STEWART in Hold-harmless and Indemnity Agreement No. (UCC1) 0000000181153371, dated the Forth teen

Day of the Fifth Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven, against any and all claims, legal actions, orders, warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits, costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, as are due and as might become due, now existing and as might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by Debtor for any and every reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever. Selfexecuting Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized use: By this Copyright Notice, both the juristic person and the agent of said juristic person, hereinafter jointly and severally User, consent and agree that any use of LITTLE JOHN STEWART other than authorized use as set forth above constitutes unauthorized use and counterfeiting of Secured Partys common-law copyrighted property and contractually binds User and renders this Copyright Notice a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and Little-John: Stewart is Secured Party, and signifies that User: (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in all of Users assets, land and personal property, and all of Users interest in assets, land, and personal property, in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each occurrence of use of any of the common-law-copyrighted tradename/trade-mark LITTLE JOHN STEWART, as well as for each and every occurrence of use of any and all derivatives of, and variations in the spelling of, LITTLE JOHN STEWART, plus costs, plus triple damages; (2) authenticates this Security Agreement wherein User is debtor and Little-John: Stewart is Secured Party, and wherein User pledges all of Users property; i.e., all assets, land, consumer goods farm products, inventory, equipment, money, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letter-of-credit rights, chattel paper, instruments, deposit accounts, accounts, documents, and general intangibles, and all Users interest in all such foregoing property, now owned and hereafter acquired, now existing and hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing Users contractual obligation in favor of Secured Party for Users unauthorized use of Secured Partys common-law copyrighted property; (3) consents and agrees with Secured Partys filing of a UCC Financing Statement in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorders office, wherein User is debtor and Little-John: Stewart is Secured Party; (4) consents and agrees that said UCC Financing Statement described above in paragraph (3) is a continuing financing statement, and further consents and agrees with Secured Partys filing of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured Partys perfected security interest in all of Users property and interest property pledged as collateral in this Security Agreement and described above in paragraph (2), until Users contractual obligation theretofore incurred has been fully satisfied; (5) consents and agrees with Secured Partys filing of any UCC Financing Statement, as described above in paragraphs (3) and (4), as well as the filing of any Security Agreement, as described above in paragraph (2), in the UCC filing office, as well as in any county recorders office; (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings described in paragraphs (4) and (5) above are not, and may not be considered, bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus; (7) waives all defenses; and (8) appoints Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon Users default re Users contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party as set forth below under Payment Terms and Default Terms, granting Secured Party full authorization and power for engaging in any and all actions on behalf of User, as Secured Party, in Secured Partys sole discretion deems appropriate, and User further consents and agrees that this appointment of Secured Party as Authorized Representative for User, effective upon Users default is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest. User further consents and agrees with all of the following additional terms of Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use: Payment Terms: In accordance with fees for unauthorized use of LITTLE JOHN STEWART as set forth above, User hereby consents and agrees that User shall pay Secured Party all unauthorized-use fees in full within ten (10) days of the date User is sent Secured Partys invoice, hereinafter invoice, itemizing said fees. Default Terms: In event of non-payment in full of all unauthorized use fees by User within ten (10) days of date invoice is sent. User shall be deemed in default and: (a) all of Users property and interest in property pledged as collateral by User, as described above in paragraph (2), immediately becomes, i.e., is property of Secured Party; (b) Secured Party is appointed Users Authorized Representative as set forth above in paragraph (8); and (C) User consents and agrees that Secured Party may take possession of, as well as otherwise dispose of in any manner that Secured Party, in Secured Partys sole discretion, deems appropriate, including, but not limited by, sale at auction at any time following Users default, and without further notice, any and all of Users former property and interest in property, as described above in paragraph (2), formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, in respect of this Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use, that Secured Party, again in Secured Partys sole discretion, deems appropriate. Terms for Curing Default: Upon event of default, as set forth above under Default Terms, irrespective of any

and all of Users former property and interest in property, in the possession of, as well as disposed of by, Secured Party, as authorized above under Default Terms, User may cure Users default regarding the remainder of Users former property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral that is neither in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of, by Secured Party within twenty (20) days of date of Users default only by payment in full. Terms of Strict Foreclosure: Users non-payment in full of all unauthorized-use fees itemized in Invoice within said twenty (20) day period for curing default as set forth above under Terms for Curing Default authorizes Secured Partys immediate non-judicial strict foreclosure on any and all remaining property and interest in property formerly pledged as collateral by User, now property of Secured Party, which is not in the possession of, nor otherwise disposed of by, Secured Party upon expiration of said twenty (20) day default-curing period. Ownership subject to common-law copyright and UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement filed with the UCC filing office. Record Owner: Little-John: Stewart Autograph Common Law Copyright 1959. Unauthorized use of any of Little-John: Stewart incurs same unauthorized-use fees as those associated with LITTLE JOHN STEWART as set forth above in paragraph (1) under Self-executing Contract/Security Agreement in Event of Unauthorized Use. *********************************** EXHIBIT S Claim of Ownership CERTIFICATE - Claim of Ownership via Warehouse Receipt I, Little-John: Stewart, hereinafter known as Claimant, do herein place Claim of Ownership over, upon and against any, and all, facets, aspects, phases and relations of all actions of Real Existence and True Character signified by a/any piece of parchment, paper or electronic data entry that makes reference to the Living Man of the Male Gender herein referred to as Claimant by any Name, Title, Number (or, group of numbers) or Assignment other than Claimants Christian Appellation. All Fictions, Legal Entities and Vessels in commerce that make any reference to Claimant are herein claimed as Collateral and property belonging to Claimant. According to Barrons Dictionary of Banking Terms, a certificate is a paper establishing an ownership claim. The registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933. Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called warehouse receipts, now printed on banknote paper. The items included on a warehouse receipt, as described at Section 7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are: ~1. The location of the warehouse where the goods are stored (residence) Claimant was born of a woman on, not in, Pennsylvania County on Virginia Republic State and Claimant has no residence, but Lives within His own carbon based body of Flesh, Bone and Blood. ~2. The date of issue of the receipt(Date issued) Claimants Nativity was (according to records in Family Bible) December 11, 1959, however, Informants issued, or caused to be issued, a fictitious Warehouse Receipt stating a berth-date of a newly launched vessel in commerce on December 11, 1959. ~3. The consecutive number of the receipt(found on the certificate, usually in red) File number 145-59-083068 is found on the Notification of Birth Registration that was recorded at the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Subsequent copy of Birth Certificate shows State File Number 145-59-083068****** with a bond number on the back side, lower right corner, ******. ~4. A description of the goods or of the packages containing them (Name, sex, DOB, etc.) Claimants Christian Appellation was not found on said Warehouse Receipt; however, multiple misnomers of similar sound were on the face of said document. One can comprehend that said document is making reference to Claimant through mention of sex, place of birth, etc.; therefore, Claimant makes Claim to such collateral. ~5. The signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent (clerk,

doctor, state registrar, etc.) J.C. Capt, Director of the Census signed on the lower left corner of said document. An indeterminate person signed as Special Agent, Bureau of the Census. According to Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th ed., Birth and marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as warehouse receipts under the Uniform Commercial Code. Warehouse receipt. A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security. Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. [In order to borrow, collateral must be pledged. A Maxim of Law states that one cannot pledge what it does not own.] All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated warehouse receipts for births and marriages in order to pledge a fictional vessel they created on paper as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserves banks. The Full Faith and Credit of the American people is said to be that which back the nations debt. That simply means the American peoples ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers (slaves), the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources human resources, that is. Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of humans began on July 14, 1862, when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a per head basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle, chattel) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without United States, 28 USC 1746(1), that the foregoing is true and correct. L.S. by___________________________________authorized representative ******************************************************** EXHIBIT Q(2) Gov. as Trustee, NOT Beneficiary OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (of the Public) ARE TRUSTEES Am Juris Prud - public officers ARE trustees :* *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, 247* As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987) ****************************************************************

EXHIBIT O Christian Appellation Statutory Declaration of True Name and NOTICE and Declaration of Law and Jurisdiction I am recognized and known by my Christian Appellation, Little-John: of the Stewart Family. If I choose to respond, it is only to such Christian Appellation. I am not a corporation, nor a "person", therefore, no legislative court shall ever obtain "personal jurisdiction" over me. I cannot use copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against any legislative, or executive, body, therefore, no legislative, nor executive, body can use said copyrighted codes, statutes, rules, or regulations against me; and, said "court" fails to obtain "in rem jurisdiction" over me. I have no "residence" within any geographical jurisdiction, I do not "re-side" within any political jurisdiction, and I am not a magistrate of any federal foreign fictional government, so I have no entourage for any "residency". I keep house within the geographical Maryland Republic, or in whatever Republic I so choose, therefore, there is no "state within a state" of federal jurisdiction, nor is there a political overlay of federal area or postal Zone Improvement Plan, therefore, there is no "federal jurisdiction" over me, nor is there obtainable any "venue jurisdiction" over me. I recognize the use of Federal Reserve Notes as contraband and gambling tokens, issued, maintained, and controlled within the Private realm of a Private corporation, therefore, I do not own, handle, nor utilize any of them outside the Rule of Necessity, which is a Rule of Common Law, originating well before the establishment of the British Colonies on American soil. Therefore, using only barter, silver, and where absolutely necessary under said ancient rule, Federal Reserve Notes (which are not of substance), no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "substantive jurisdiction" over me. I am who I say I am, not who, or what (person), any corporate administrator says I am. Since there is no lawful money of exchange available to "pay" any debt, or to "pay" any fines, fees, licenses, penalties, court costs, etc., I cannot be a contemnor, as I am in contempt of nothing. No Private Man, nor corporate body or agency thereof, can demand that I do the impossible. As it is impossible to "pay" for anything, no fictional corporate governmental body can demand that I do the impossible, therefore, no legislative court or executive agency shall obtain any "legislative or executive jurisdiction" over me. I am not aware of the existence of any judicial branch of any level of true Republican government nor is any available to me, therefore, no "judicial jurisdiction" is obtainable over me. I am not a U.S. citizen, a United States citizen, a 14th Amendment citizen, nor in any other manner do I "cite-IZen". I am, therefore, NOT an enemy of the "state" under any fictional corporate charter regulations and no "corporate jurisdiction" is obtainable over me to condemn me to a category of enemy of any "state". My Constitution is the Holy Writ and I claim only one "color", that being the color of white in the form of a "flag of truce", making known to all that I have no controversy with any. I have no "license" to operate contrary to true law. I have no "permit" to temporarily suspend true law, therefore, no "Admiralty jurisdiction" is obtainable over me. I observe only the True Laws brought forward by the Ancient and Holy Writ, engulfing all established within principles of the Ten Commandments and the later Commandments to love the Lord My God with all my mind, soul, and body; and to, love my neighbor as myself; this is my political establishment, therefore, no fictional political jurisdiction is obtainable over me. I exist only in, and respond only to, my Christian Appellation, Little-John: Stewart. I do not recognize, nor give cognizance to, any fictional corporate entity, nor do I recognize any of their agents. No fictional, quasigovernmental agent/agency can obtain parity with me; therefore, no jurisdiction of agency is obtainable over me. I am in my True Character, a Private Man upon the soil, maintaining only as a private man can, the Right of Soil. I am not a reflection, image, fiction, or other "person". I own and maintain my own "person" for purpose of contracting in the realm of commerce in a lawful and upright manner. My word is my bond when dealing with men. I offer my "signature" when contracting with fictional entities in commerce. Said "signature" (sig=no nature=alive) means no nature, thus, not alive - it is a bond offered into debt/death. For this reason such "scribble" is called "cursive writing", cursed communication with the dead, the fiction. By being responsible for my own "person" under True Law, I exercise my "personal rights" referred to by Thomas Jefferson, and maintain

my lawful standing, impeccable under law, I do not yield "Character jurisdiction" over me, or my "persons". Respectfully Presented, by _________________________ agent Little-John: Stewart, sui juris . ******************************************************************** EXHIBIT Q Beneficiary to the Original Trust (Correcting the Records) Introductory Statement: The lawful Trust, established within the parameters of Trust Doctrine (see EXHIBIT E), was converted, under unlawful conversion, into a Dead Persons Estate and into that of a Debtor. Under the law, Debt and Death mean the same; Debt means Dead. Various Treaties between the United States and offshore foreign countries often appoint Emissaries and Ambassadors to represent the death of the UNITED STATES. Therefore, for all practical purposes, Grantor is deemed to be the Executor of the Estate, rather than the Beneficiary to the Trust. For purposes of this, and associated/annexed documents, Beneficiary means Executor. Certain established parameters of language are: VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits VALUE IS ACQUIRED: [as per U.C.C. 1-201(44)] 1. With an exchange of Rights for a binding commitment to extend credit; 2. As Security for Satisfaction of a pre-existing Claim; 3. By Accepting Delivery to a pre-existing contract for Purchase; 4. Exchange for any consideration to support a contract; 5. An Interest in a thing/issue is given a Transferable Value; 6. Subrogation places a transfer of Rights from the Visible to the Invisible; The Right of Authority is through a Birth Certificate issued by the STATE and ACCEPTED FOR VALUE; My acceptance of Presidential Oath made by the President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section 1), is a Binding Agreement to fulfill his Promise as Executive Trustee. The Presidents oath is consideration sufficient to support the simple contract the President (executive trustee) has with the people (beneficiaries). He does not have an oath of office. That is different than an oath. All legislative, executive, and judicial officers performing under him in his capacity as Commander in Chief have oaths of office. He has a constitutional oath.

Value is anything recognized as a pledge or the result of a pledge. The birth certificate is the Resultant Trust ofthe Presidents oath. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would just be evidence of the obligation every Unites States citizen owes to the United States. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would not be evidence of the obligation the United States owes to the people. On the public side, the birth certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S. citizen to be a surety for the United States. On the public side, it is security for the pledge of allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by its citizens. On the private side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a promise made by the President to the people. On the private side, it is security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the People as beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the babys physical description that was symbolically delivered by an informant (Mother) to the United States. The setoff resulting from accepting an instrument for value is a distribution from the trust. SUPPORTING NOTES: Remember, when you accept an Oath, you consummate an agreement, a contract. When you accept for value, you are accepting the consideration the United States has offered to you as evidence of an obligation it has to you as a beneficiary; as well as whatever consideration is offered on the instrument that is being transferred to you through the United States citizen you represent. The United States is humbling itself by asking

you to give it assistance. It is applying for credit on every instrument that is issued or transferred for value. If you just receive one of these instruments [even a utility bill] without accepting it for value and returning it for value, the presumption is that you intend to pay it. You can pay it with a check, or you can pay it with your prepaid account. It is up to you, but you have to pay it immediately, or you will be deemed to be in dishonor. If you A4V, you can use a distribution from the trust to pay the instrument. If you just retain it or argue about the existence or amount of the request, you will pay it with a check, tangible property, or your body. Did the United States offer a birth certificate to you? Did you receive it? Did you accept it for value and return it as a security? If you do not accept it for value and deposit it as an asset, you have voluntarily waived rights to a distribution that is available to you. In a purely commercial system, rights are remedies. Parties to a modern commercial transaction need remedies in the event one of them breaches the terms of the agreement. The birth certificate is a remedy, and represents an antecedent claim you have against the United States. It is also evidence of a preexisting contract. It represents the prepaid account you have available to you for setoffs. Acceptance is an agreement and leads to a binding contract. If you dont set the terms of that binding contract, the United States will. Beneficiary NOTICES Presidential Delegates: DHS (executive) Sec of Treasury (legislative) DOJ (judicial) Sec of State (administrative) ALL is in reference to a Pre-existing Contract, a Trust Receipt, known as a Certificate of Live Birth, to wit: 1. A person (corporate United States) gives value (certificated security = birth certificate) for rights (to create money on the signature of the man = borrow from the people) as security (promise not to deny or disparage rights of the people) for satisfaction (acknowledgement of obligation to people) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 2. A person (state citizen [by Mom]) gives value (signature on application for birth certificate) for rights (to be beneficiary on the trust) as security (promise) for satisfaction (distribution from the trust) of a preexisting claim (beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 3. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (Constitution) for rights (to be recognized internationally) as security (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy) for satisfaction (acknowledgment of international law) of a preexisting claim (need for a plan to pay international creditors). 4. A person (officer in the federal government) gives value (Article VI oath) for rights (to hold an office) as security (promise to support this constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (peoples beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). 5. A person (a state, i.e., Ohio, etc.) gives value (office in the federal government) for rights (to be part of the union of American states = federal United States) as security (promise to abide by terms of Constitution) for satisfaction (performance on terms of Constitution) of a preexisting claim (promise to pay creditors of the Confederacy). 6. A person (President) gives value (Article II oath) for rights (to be Commander in Chief) as security (promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution) for satisfaction (performance) of a preexisting claim (peoples beneficial interest in the trust created by the Constitution). Make a note of this The President of the United States of America, because of his Oath, is the ONLY EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE of the Trust, of which, I AM THE BENEFICIARY. I am the HOLDER OF THE NOTE (Birth Certificate). It is the holder who acquires a security interest in the instrument, IF he takes the instrument for value. It is not the issuer who has the security interest; it is the holder. The issuer has the liability. Judicial court orders can transfer rights in property, creating a security interest in the title to the subject property, but that is not how it works with an instrument that is issued for value. An order for a judicial court-created security interest is not the type of instrument that a transferee would take for value; but, an order for an executive court-created security interest is a type of instrument that a transferee would take for value. United States courts

are not judicial courts; they are territorial courts and were created through Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 by the power granted to the Congress to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court. Their orders do not result in security interests through judicial proceedings. To avoid fraud, the instrument has to be issued for value. It gives the transferee (a U.S. citizen) a security interest in the instrument. The only piece of paper a man has the is proof of the security interest he has is the birth certificate. It has no value on the private side, but it does on the public side if he deposits with an appropriate banker, who can then be the mans securities intermediary, and the man can be the entitlement holder. This is explained in UCC Article 8 in the 500 series. An Order that a securities intermediary deposit the birth certificate makes it a security. It appears that the birth certificate is not an actual security until it passes to a second holder, i.e., from the issuer (State of Maryland) to the Department of Commerce of the United States (the Department of Transportation, Bureau of the Census). The United States uses the certificate until you decide you want to use it. You have the priority right to it as a security for the obligation the United States has to you. It was issued to you. A bond can be given written against the security (bond = birth certificate) he is holding. A promissory note can be written against the bond that is written against the security. Such a promissory note would be an order from the entitlement holder to the securities intermediary to use the security he is maintaining for a specific purpose. UCC 8-102(a)(8) Entitlement order means a notification communicated to a securities intermediary directing transfer or redemption of a financial asset to which the entitlement holder has a security entitlement. UCC 8-505. Duty of Securities Intermediary with Respect to Payments and Distributions. (a) a securities intermediary shall take action to obtain a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if: (1) the securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary; or (2) in the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to attempt to obtain the payment or distribution. (b) A securities intermediary is obligated to its entitlement holder for a payment or distribution made by the issuer of a financial asset if the payment or distribution is received by the securities intermediary. Since securities intermediaries have obligations to entitlement holders, the securities intermediaries must have capacity to act. That is done under the premise that a securities intermediary is declared in the commercial code to be a purchaser for value. The indirect holding system of the United States would not function as expected if the securities intermediary did not have capacity to act. Without the rights of an owner or a purchaser, the securities intermediary would be powerless to act in the intended manner. UCC 8-116 Securities Intermediary as Purchaser For Value A securities intermediary that receives a financial asset and establishes a security entitlement to the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder is a purchaser for value of the financial asset. UCC 3-303. Value and consideration A. An instrument is issued or transferred for value if: 3. The instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due;

Giving value from 1-201 is not the same as transferring for value from 3-303. The transferor (issuer) in 303usually wants to get a valuable consideration back for an instrument he issues for value, and he wants a new contract on which he or the person he represents is the creditor. When an instrument issued for value is received and retained, it is accepted as though the receiver has given it a blank endorsement, and the transfer of liability has been successful. A blank endorsement waives all the defects, and the main defect in an instrument issued for value is that there is no security attached to it. If it were not for the inherent security interest in the instrument itself, the whole project would be fraud. The issuer is not giving value; he is seeking value. The issuer is not giving consideration; he is seeking consideration. These abnormalities can be cured if the transferee gives it a qualified endorsement as a payment and returns the payment for closure of the account. After acceptance through a blank endorsement, the issuers

consideration is presumed, and the endorser is liable on the instrument. A commitment (implied or express) by the transferee (to take on the liability) through a general acceptance would be a valuable consideration on his part, and would result in a binding contract. He is then obligated on the instrument to make immediate payment. If you cannot tell on the face of the instrument if it is a promise or an order, it can be treated as either. When the payee receives a check, it is a promise. When he negotiates it by endorsing it and delivering to a bank, it is an order. Until someone gives an endorsement, an instrument issued for value is not negotiable. If the transferee makes the instrument negotiable as a security with a blank endorsement, the transferee must pay it. He can give it a qualified endorsement by accepting it for value, to make it a payment. When it is subsequently presented to a third party (banker), it is an order from the maker to the third party to pay it. The instrument issued for value becomes the very payment that pays it. If the transferee gives it a blank endorsement (by his silence) and does not return it with his check, he makes the instrument his promise and also makes the instrument negotiable as a security. Whoever has a right to enforce it can negotiate it. If the transferee has no idea what to do with it, he might inadvertently make it a security and commit himself to pay it. It is his choice. There is a price for ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity; it is lack of knowledge. If an instrument is issued and transferred for value, the person who is the transferee can make it the issuers note (promise) and the transferees draft (order). The transferee can be the one entitled to enforce the instrument if he gives it a proper endorsement. If he does not, the transferor is the person entitled to enforce the instrument, and he will enforce it. A case designed to seize property of a U.S. citizen is called a penal action. It is not civil, and it is not criminal. It is based on violation of statutes that were implemented to facilitate collections from U.S. citizens to pay the national debt. Libels of information are used to obtain arrest warrants from the clerks of executive courts so the proceeding can be commenced. These are not cases; they are proceedings. When an indictment (true bill), which is actually a libel of information, or other bill is presented to a U.S. citizen by the United States, an obligation on a preexisting claim against the United States (national debt) is being transferred to the transferee (surety - defendant or debtor). The bill is issued for value. The endorser is expected to create the money, both for the payment and for the security. The United States wants the U.S. citizen to supply the value. There is no actual security, antecedent claim, or preexisting contract behind it. No money is needed if the transferee treats it as a payment and sends it to the issuers banker with a qualified endorsement. This puts the endorser in the drivers seat and makes him the party entitled to enforce the instrument. On the other hand, no money is needed if the transferee treats it as a security by giving it a blank endorsement and keeping (holding) it. This puts the issuer or his principal in the drivers seat and entitles the principal to enforce the instrument. Since 1933, the only money in circulation is money of account that is created on demand at the time it is needed to satisfy an immediate need. If a bill is issued with nothing to secure it, it has to be issued for value, because the money to pay it (promise to back it) has not been created. If the transferee receives a bill and does not pay it immediately, he is in default. Some say the reason it cannot be paid is because no check to pay it was included with the bill. The instrument is the check if it is taken as a payment, made negotiable with a proper endorsement, and turned into a draft (issuers order). If the transferee accepts it for value and returns it to the issuers banker (Secretary of the Treasury) as payment to balance the books and close the account, he is not in default. Since it was issued for value, and transferred for value, it can be accepted for value. To be a holder in due court, the endorser must take (accept) the instrument for value. See 3-302, Holder in due course above. Under Article 3, if an instrument is issued for value, it is also issued for consideration. The issuer either gives the consideration through the instrument, or issues the instrument for value to receive the consideration from the transferee. When an instrument is accepted (taken) for value, it can be returned to pay the bill, and the transaction is finished. All the required bookkeeping entries for an accrual bookkeeping system can be made based on the offer for value and the acceptance for value. This bookkeeping cannot be done if the bill is not returned with an appropriate endorsement though. If the bill is not returned, the bookkeeper has an unbalanced account. All accounts must be closed at the end of the business day in an accrual system. An unbalanced account necessitates entries into the accounts payable and accounts receivable ledgers. If you are the cause of a payable, you are also responsible for the receivable, so your retention of the instrument is deemed to be a blank endorsement. If you do not balance that account, an executive court will do it for you. That usually results in a statutory penalty being applied against you through the U.S. citizen you represent. Much more could be said, but for the sake of brevity, is available upon request. *************************************************

EXHIBIT L Demand for Exchange of Value 31 CFR B Chapter 1, Part 103, Subpart A, 103.11 (ll) Transmittor. The sender of the first transmittal order in a transmittal of funds. The term transmittor includes an originator, except where the transmittor's financial institution is a financial institution or foreign financial agency other than a bank or foreign bank. (vv) Stored value. Funds or monetary value represented in digital electronics format (whether or not specially encrypted) and stored or capable of storage on electronic media in such a way as to be retrievable and transferable electronically. VALUE IS: Present Worth of Future Benefits Claimant has no record or evidence that True and Honest Value and/or related Services has ever been manifested on behalf of Claimant, the Living Man, as per: On March 3, 1851 Congress passed a law called "The Public Liability Statute." As a result, ship (the numbered vessel registered after the application for a Birth Certificate) owners (the corporate U.S.S.A.) are now exempt from damages to goods while involved in commerce; now, the shippers are responsible for such goods under maritime law, whereby we are responsible for any loss which occurs while involved in maritime commerce, which is a gambling policy, which is an insurance tontine scheme which wagers for profit. All insurance falls under Maritime Law. This was/is a cunning and despicable plot to re-institute a tontine scheme at the federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve. This is FRAUD. When a person, a vessel that may enter commerce, commences action into the credit system (which is really a Debt System) of the Public National Credit (Federal Reserve) they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint venture is the use of the communal credit (debt), wherein an insurable interest has been created. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax, right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit. Anything that involves Federal Reserve Notes is under Maritime Law because FRNs are an insurance premium. In De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held that insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty Jurisdiction. Maritime or Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through re-insurance of a credit policy. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and replaced by a wagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law. I could display well over a dozen case cites that explain the use of FRNs is wagering, but for space and brevity I will not provide. Remembering that FRNs are Negotiable Instruments, one viable defense against such a Beast as herein discussed is to challenge it at every stage of its offense. The UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii) affirms... ...one of the other defenses is that the instrument is illegal, when that instrument has been deemed to mean for collecting usury or gambling debts. [Usury equals INTEREST; it is also a gamble] The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15) is bankrupt on the authority of Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an "obligor/grantor" to the Federal Reserve Bank created by the authority of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 265, Chapter 6. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law, not Public Law (see Exhibit K - Interlocking Directorates for full explanation), nor Public Policy, as in reference to a Mr. Lewis which was injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. government for damages. The court ruled, "...that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal government could not be held responsible."- Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982). Congress (having exclusive jurisdiction over that ten mile square territory known as Washington, D.C.) agreed in the Federal Reserve Act to give that bank system a paramount and "permanent" (ex-warranto 1913 to 1933) lien on the United States (UCC 9-307(h), the United States is located IN Washington, D.C.) assets and the USER of said bank notes by the authority of 38 Stat. 265, Ch. 6, pp. 266-267. The USER agrees, as a "parole promise," to accept the status as an obligor/grantor and to hypothecate all "his" assets to the United States and thereby to the Federal Reserve which is merely a private corporation, and not "federal." The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a collection agreement as a

"USER" fee for the USE of said bank notes (see Interlocking Directorates). I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of Federal Reserve Notes as I cannot consent and do not assent to be an obligor/grantor to said Federal Reserve Bank. I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of said bank notes on the authority of MacLeod v. Hoover, (June 22, 1925) No. 26395, S. Ct. Louisiana; 105 So.Rptr. 305. That court citing U.S. Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheaton 338; 6 L.Ed. 343. Therefore, I refuse for good cause shown, any, and all, corporate and/or governmental agents/agencies and participating affiliates, to induce me to be a tort feasor to the Constitution for The United States of America where at Article 1, Section 10, it states, "No State shall emit bills of credit; make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts." The Congress of the United States of America, by the authority of the Gold Bullion Act of 1985, Public Law 99-185, December 17, 1985, 99 Statutes 1177, has given its intent that all Americans can no longer be forced into an obligor/grantor status to said Federal Reserve Bank Notes. There is no debating the established fact that: Federal Reserve Notes of Debt can be made legal tender for parties of/with a relationship to/with the Federal Government; i.e., those persons who have a nexus/benefit such as; federal government employees, recipient of federal largesse, elected federal office holders, or those who choose to use Federal Reserve Notes, either knowingly or unknowingly, but states and individuals cannot be compelled to use Federal Reserve Notes. [I am an Individual and, in a certain sense, a foreign state.] All Administrators, Agents, and Agencies must take judicial notice of TEXAS CODE (imported under Equal Footing Doctrine) Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures, to wit: "All recognizances, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the United States only," and, Nevada. NRS 99.010 Dollar, cent and mill to be money of account. The money of account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill. All the accounts in the public offices, other public accounts, and all proceedings in courts, shall be kept and had in conformity with this section," and, Nevada. NRS 99.030 Obligation, judgments or executions payable in legal money. After February 15, 1893, all official bonds and undertakings, and all obligations of debt, judgments or executions stated in terms of dollars and to be paid in money shall be payable in legal money authorized by the Congress of the United States," and, Title 31 USC Section 371: "The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredth part of a dollar; and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation," and, Title 31 USC Section 311: "It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money...." THE COINAGE ACT OF 1792 IS STILL CURRENT AND EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT A DOLLAR IS. Title 31 USC 408 prohibits the redemption of any currency into gold and Title 31 USC 405(a)-3 prohibits the redemption of any United States currency dollar for dollar into gold and silver. So, the law itself prohibits Affiant from using any Lawful Money. And, for a check to be a negotiable instrument, it must contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money and be payable on demand or at a definite time (UCC 3-103 (b) (c)). Thus, neither the bank nor this Affiant is able to comply with the law of money and cannot be held a contemnor. Currency, Money as it is commonly known, or thought to be, is "contraband" at statute!!! Affiant has thoroughly invoked Rule Of Necessity for any mistakes made by way of usage of Federal Reserve Notes.

Also, TITLE 31 USC, 306.10, 2 - Taxpayer identifying numbers are not required for foreign governments, nonresident aliens not engaged in trade or business within the United States DEEPER FRAUD: SUPPORTING NOTES "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152. Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5 Phila. 366. 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879); Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835), and, "Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars." U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk. And, "Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness and promise of payment." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al, 223 N.Y.S. 481. ""Money" does not include treasury notes". Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536, and, "In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling greenbacks or national currency notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And, "The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part of the circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be considered as money; but, in the strict sense of the term, they are not included therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C. 58,60. And, ""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated as such." Johnson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325. And, "The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment charging that the defendant played at a game of faro for money--cannot be sustained by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And, "The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and violence, and with intent to steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St. 422,426. ******************************************************* In the Account of Little-John: Stewart Who may be NOTICED at: C/O 5600 54th Avenue. Somewhere, Maryland Republic Non-Domestic ZIP EXEMPT DMM122.32 NOTICE OF: DIPLOMATIC PROTEST (To be applied in conjunction with NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM and NOTICE OF EXPATRIATION) Public international law is proper law regarding unilateral international transactions or 'acts' concerning subjects and objects of international law: Note: Renunciation as follows means Expatriation from de facto oligarchy and Repatriation into the de jure Republic. As international acts concerning the public law succession to sovereignties, the proper law applicable to such dynastic renunciations and their proper interpretation is public international law concerning subjects of international law rather than the law of the place where the renunciation happens to be signed: A renunciation is an unilateral International transaction subject to public international law as the proper law: See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, Nos. 486 & 488.

Similar to treaties, the municipal or domestic law of the place where a renunciation concerning the succession to subjects of public international law is made does not constitute the proper law of that renunciation: See Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), 100-101; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, Nos. 21 &22; Article 13 of The Declaration of Rights and Duties of States, 9 June 1949 by the International Law Commission of the United Nations; 1887 U. S, Foreign Relations 751 at 753. See also Articles 27, 46, and 47 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The same is true of any treaty: The proper law of that treaty is public international law rather than the municipal (domestic) law of the place where the treaty was signed. Thus, a treaty may properly affect international rights in a manner which might not be recognised for private law rights under the municipal law of the place where that treaty was signed -- the treaty as an international act concerning subjects and objects of international law being governed by public international law, not the local municipal law. The validity of dynastic renunciations referencing subjects of public international law is subject only to the peremptory norms of international law. See Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), pp. 213-236. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, p. 417. See also Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Similar to treaties, the renunciation of rights to subjects of international law are governed by the canons of construction applicable to treaties and international agreements. Survival of de jure Sovereignty and Governments-in-Exile: Under the doctrines of public international law a ruler who is deprived of the government of his country by either an invader or revolutionaries remains the legitimate de jure Sovereign of that Country while the de facto regime set up by the revolutionaries or the invader is considered an "usurper", both constitutionally and internationally. See Hugo Grotius De jure belli ac pacis, libri Tres, Book I, Chapter 4, Nos. 15-19. Such de jure possession of sovereignty continues so long as the de jure ruler or government does not surrender his sovereignty to the usurper. See Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis Juris Gentium, Chapter 10, Nos. 9-11. Upon the fall, dispossession, or usurpation of a monarchy, the de jure legal rights to the succession of that monarchy may be kept alive indefinitely through the legal vehicle of making diplomatic protests against the usurpation. See Emerich Vattel, Le Droit des gens, Book II, Chapter II, Nos. 145-146. Such Claimants are de jure Sovereigns and, as such, Head of the Government-in-Exile of their usurped country. Governments-in-Exile are subjects of public international law, and matters relating to them are within the scope of the jurisdiction of public international law as the applicable proper law ... rather than the law of the place where that Government-in-Exile may be located. See Whitman, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, pp. 921-930. F. E. Oppenheim, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," 36 American Journal of International Law (1942), pp. 568-595. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, No. 144. The public international law regarding the legal effect of protests against the usurpation of sovereignty applies to republics as well as to monarchies, democracies, or oligarchies: The United States of America refused to recognise the 1939 Soviet usurpation of the three Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia , and Lithuania. This facilitated the maintenance of Governments-in-Exile of the Baltic Republics and the maintenance of embassies in Washington, D. C., which persisted through the Cold War Era until these countries managed to recover their independence. Accordingly, matters pertaining to de jure Governments-in-Exile are matters of public international law. The de jure sovereignty of a state which has been usurped by a foreign conqueror is not extinguished by such usurpation but survives as long as such sovereignty is kept alive by competent diplomatic protests. See Philip Marshall Brown, "Sovereignty in Exile," 35 American Journal of International Law (1941), p. 666-668. Exiled Sovereigns and Governments choice of law that of usurped state to govern political and public acts: Under public international law a Government-in-Exile, monarchical or republican, is deemed to have the implied constitutional power to perform all normal acts of state ... including those acts which by its own constitution would require the consent of an organ of government, such as a parliament, the congress, senate, and the higher Supreme Court of the People, which are at present suspended due to the conditions arising from a usurpation of sovereignty. See F. E. Oppenheim, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," 36 American Journal of International Law (1942), pp. 568 at 581-582.

In such cases the choice of law by the parties making the renunciation of dynastic rights concerning sovereignties is the public law of that former State rather than the law of the place where the renunciation was signed. Choice of law is very common in private law commercial law contracts: A grain supplier located in Argentina shipping wheat to a purchaser in Russia upon a Liberian ship will commonly contract that the law relating to the shipment of the wheat will be British law (because British shipping law has been so well interpreted) even though neither the buyer, seller or the shipper has any 'contact' with the United Kingdom. In all such cases courts will apply the law of choice as the substantive law governing that contract as the proper law applicable to that contract rather than the law of the place where the contract was signed, the goods were delivered, or the nationality of the vessel making delivery. Thus, if a Government-in-Exile located abroad (say the Governments-in-Exile of one of the three Baltic Republics during the Cold War Era) makes a public law act concerning its former State which has been usurped (as were the three Baltic Republics by the Soviet Union), the legal validity of the acts of that Government-in-Exile are governed by the public or constitutional law of that usurped State rather than by the law of the place where the Government-in-Exile happens to be located. Survival of private law rights acquired under former sovereign: The fall, revolution, or usurpation of a former government or state brings into play the international law of state succession to govern resulting legal affairs: Briefly, within the usurped State the public law of the former sovereign governing constitutional and public institutional matters must, of necessity, fall. However, the statutory law of the former Sovereign survives to govern private legal rights acquired or 'vested' under such statutory law of the former Sovereign. As 'vested' or acquired private law legal rights, such survive the change or succession of sovereign. Such 'vested' private law legal rights must be recognised by the new or usurping sovereign. The general proposition of public international law is that the municipal law of a country is not changed by a change of sovereignty. Private law rights acquired or 'vesting' under the law of the former sovereign remain valid after state succession and continue to be governed by the law of the former Sovereign applicable at the time when such private law rights originally 'vested' or were acquired ... notwithstanding the fact that the former Sovereign has been de facto replaced. In support of this proposition see the decisions of The Hague "World Court, the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of the German Settlers in Poland, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 6, Advisory Opinion No. 8, Annual Digest, 1923-1924, Case No. 37.; Sopron-Koszeg Local Railway Company Case, Lega of Nations, Official Journal, 1929, p. 1359; American Journal of International law, Vol. XXIV (1930) pp. 164-174; Annual Digest, 1929-1930, Case No. 34; E. Thalheimer v. Yugoslav State before the Hungarian-Yugoslav Mixed Arbitral Tribunal on 6 Sept 1928, Recueil, VIII, p. 579, Annual Digest, 1927-1928, Case no. 60; State Succession (Notarial Act) Case, before the Austrian Supreme Court in Civil Matters decided 13 May 1919, Annual Digest, 1919-1922, Case No. 40; Occupation of Crete Case, the Greek Court of Cassation, Annual Digest, 1925-1926, Case No. 69; Heirs of the Prince Mohammed Selim v. The Government of Palestine,, Annual Digest 1935-1937, Case No. 39; Mihan Singh v. the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Annual Digest, 1954, pp. 64-66; Supreme Court of India in Virendra Singh v., State of Uttar Pardesh, Annual Digest, 1955, p. 131. Given the many separate state successions involved in the formation of the United States between Great Britain, France, Spain, the Republic of Texas, and Hawaii, this doctrine is also affirmed in the following decisions of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Perchman, 7 Pet. 51, 86-87 (1830); United States v. Chavez, 159 U. S. 453 (1895); Brownsville v. Cavazos, 100 U. S. 138, 25 L. Ed 574 (1879); United States v. Perot, 98 U. S. 428 (1879); Fremont v. United States 17 How. 542, 58 U. S. 241 (1854); United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U. S. 256 (1946) Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464, at 493 (1823); Delassus v. United States, 9 Pet. 117 at 133; United States v. the Heirs of Clarke and Atkinson, 16 Pet. 228, at 232; Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall. 308 at 312 (1871); Soulard v. United States, 4 Pert. 511 at 512 (1830); Terrett v. Taylor 9 Cranch 43 at 50 (1815);Ely v. the United Stated, 171 U. S. 220 at 223; Shapleig v. Mier, 299 U. S. 468 at 470 (1937); The same doctrine of public international law re complete survival of 'vested' private law rights upon state succession has also been affirmed in the following decision of American State courts in Miller v. Letzerich, 49 Sw2d 404, 85 A.L.R. 451 (Texas, 1932); Harris et al. v. O'Conner, 185 Sw2d 993 (Texas, 2944); Manry v. Robison et al, 56 Sw2d 438 at 444; 122 Tex. 213 (1932); Pendery v. Panhandle Refining Co, 169 SW2d 766; Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No, 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co, 4 P2d 369 (1931);

Vanderslice v. Hanks, 3 California 27 at 37-38 (1852); State v. Valmont Plantations, 346 S.W.2d 853 (Texas, 1961); State v. Balli, 190 S.W.2d 71 at 99 (Texas, 1945); Luttes v. State, 289 S.W. 2d 357 (Texas 1956) and 324 S.W,. 2d 167 at 176. The invocation of the Treaty of Peace with verbiage more understandable at: Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793), clearly specifies that We The People are not Subjects, but, rather Sovereigns without subjects. The following is a compilation of various case cites with objective to make more explicit the meaning of this DIPLOMATIC PROTEST: [bolding, underlining, etc. added] SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY OF PARIS 1884 "As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course* of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities enti