Do something with it.
I am here to help you keep your body in shape for your life. Call me. 816-436-9355
Do something with it.
I am here to help you keep your body in shape for your life. Call me. 816-436-9355
In a recent hearing where jurisdiction was effectively challenged the judge apparently got rattled and made some drastic determinations on the record that now can be used as leverage over the court and the lawyers for the rest of the case.
Our person was saying The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of) [name of state] within a state.” We have numerous references to this. But he went on the record saying there was no fictional state of Tennessee which ofcourse we can prove is not true.
From our memorandum that was also part of the record:
In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923),The court ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”.
According to [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] [65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252] The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses.  It may be as a sovereign nation or the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Or  It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, and includes “citizens of the United States” as created by the 14th Amendment domiciled in the District of Columbia, or the federal Territories and possessions , or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country.
The US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states as follows:
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
Within these areas or in jurisdiction over 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:
“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”
Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would address official definitions of the term “United States”. Therefore, the Hooven case must be judicially noticed by the entire American legal community
In Law the term “United States of America” refers to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”; the term “United States” refers to federal possessions, property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”.
In the Cumulative Bulletin of the 63rd Congressional Session, Chapter 16, Section 2, 1913, page 177, we find that the terms “State” and “United States” are identified differently when used in the context of the federal United States, or federal zone as opposed to the union of several states that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America:
Congress is the state legislature for all Territories, Possessions, and Enclaves like military bases –- an area now collectively called the federal zone. In the year 1995 A.D., Justice Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as a household word in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).
“These are the territories over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the landmass and the citizens that are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States”. .
United States is construed to mean “any territory, Alaska, DC, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Philippine Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands, Johnson Island, Baker Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Island, and Navassa Island.”
Furthermore, even though the “United States” is not a member of the “Union of States united by and under the Constitution”, it is bound by that Constitution to restrict its activities in dealing with the several States and with the Common Law Citizens of those States. Under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787). Congress has exclusive power to legislate and regulate the inhabitants of its federal property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution and its “citizens” wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union.
As can readily be seen from the quote above, with three separate and distinct definitions for the term “United States”, it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define each use of this term in law. It is equally as necessary to separate and define to whom the law applies when there are two classes of citizenship existing side-by-side, with separate and distinct rights, privileges and immunities for each.
The term “United States”, when used in its meaning as Congress’ exclusive jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, as opposed to the limited jurisdiction of the federal government under the constitution over the several states of the union that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America, under Article 1, Section 8 et all , (excepting Clause 17}, when used in this respect as its jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2, the “United States” is foreign with respect to the several states of the union united by and under the Constitution. that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America
“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.
as opposed to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”
“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States…… . … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”
Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
“Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district. Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]
Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). The individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other
This is also true of legal relationship between states:
It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other, [Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535] [6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885), emphasis added]
The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625,
It may be significant to note, [Instructions for Form 2555: Foreign Earned Income] [Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service] defines Foreign Country. –
“A foreign country is any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than the United States. “[emphasis added]
But the definition does not include U.S. possessions or territories.
…..a “foreign country” does NOT include U.S.** possessions or territories. U.S. possessions and territories are not “foreign” with respect to the federal zone; they are “domestic” with respect to the federal zone because they are inside the federal zone.
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign nation has every right to legislate for its “citizens” and to hold subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, both within (inside) and without (outside) its territorial boundaries, when legislative acts call for such effects (Cook v. Tait supra).
As a foreign nation under International law, it is perfectly legal for this nation to consider its people as “subjects” rather than as individual Sovereigns. The protections of the State and the Federal Constitutions do not apply to these “subjects” unless there is specific statutory legislation granting specific protections (e.g., The Civil Rights Act). The guarantees of the Constitution extend to the “United States” (i.e., the federal zone) only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable (Hooven supra).
In 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c) you will find stated, “Who is a citizen? . Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.” [emphasis added]
singular, the federal United States, of possessions, territories, zones areas, not plural as the union of the 50 states that is the constitutional republic, the United States of America.
Congress did not forget the proper use of English here.
NOTE: The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude and slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. This is the manner in which amendments and legislation must be written if the law is to apply within the sovereign lands of the 50 states and to their Citizens.
But The 14th Amendment is not written thusly. The 14th Amendment embraces persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not state the “plural nature” [i.e. “their“] that is required to refer to the states of the Union.
In the absence of the plural language the courts have ruled that the law applies only to federal places or persons.
The 18th Amendment created Prohibition.
“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that the language Congress used in the Amendment limited its application to areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress – which of course is not the states of the Union.
3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains: “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his birth occurs in territory over which the United States** is sovereign …” singular, the federal United States, of possessions, territories, zones areas, not plural as the union of the 50 states that is the constitutional republic, the United States of America.
Further, this “United States”, besides designating federal property, possessions, territories, lands areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”, . and its “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union, , in commerce and finance, is a corporate entity. :
The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
As evidenced by Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176. It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.
`It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878 with all federal territories and possessions. This corporation also copyrighted the names UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, USA, US and AMERICA.
There is likewise equal ambiquity in both constitutional and state statutory law, and in federal law regarding the term used: “State of Iowa”,
We find In federal law, Congress defines various places of exclusive federal jurisdiction as “States”. These places are not “states of the Union”. The other manner in which federal law sometimes addresses this issue is with the phrase, “…in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction” , as in 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c which therefore refers only to federal places.
In Article II(a) of the Uniform Detainers Act, “(a) ‘State’ shall mean a state of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
In 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act” now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area”. for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.” This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal Area” overlay. U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:
Sec. 110(d): The term “State” includes any territory or possession of the United States.
Sec. 110(e): The term “Federal Area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United states or any department, establishment, or agency of the United states; and any federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a federal area located within such State.
Under the “Buck Act,” 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this “Federal area.”
The Supreme Court has determined, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of) xxxxxx within a state.” See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O’Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440
Under the Provisions of 4 U.S.C cited above, Sections 105 , the federal “State” is defined “(also known as, “The State of xxxxxxx.”)
26 USC § 3306 Definitions – For purposes of this chapter—
(j)(1) State – The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
26 USC § 5891 Structured settlement factoring transactions
(c) Definitions (6) State -The term “State” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any possession of the United States.
The actual meanings of such terminology herein discussed affecting this case is ambiguous and unclear on its face at a minimum which materially affect the Courts jurisdiction of the law, In Personam, and in its own setting under proper oath and credentials to hear the case, which must be resolved if [[ this case is to continue.]] [[ the Court ‘s ruling is to stand. ]]
This being the case, it will become a legal issue in this case, which Tennessee his court has jurisdiction in, Tennessee, the state of the republic or some other federal area, region, zone, district or jurisdiction of the federal United States, the federal UNITED STATES, INC., or its federal area or jurisdiction, STATE OF TENNESSEE, or the “federal district of the District of Columbia”, STATE OF TENNESSEE.
Then as we said, she went to ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL” questions “So, is this an administrative proceeding under executive authority of a military, or maritime law jurisdiction, OR a judicial proceeding sitting as a court of law?” judge answered “Administrative” admitting his was not a judicial court as we have suspected all along.
Since the court admits it is an administrative court, As stated in our memorandum on this, Defendant is entitled by law to an actual adjudicative hearing before such Administrative Agency that oversees this part of the code applied in this case as may be provided for in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as found in its own regulations from the state’s administrative procedures code and that the determinations of such an adjudicative hearing must be made before this court administratively or procedurally has subject matter of a case to consider.
And if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court this is determined to be the case, Defendant respectfully gives notice to the Court request for such hearing is hereby made for such administrative agency hearing to be held and those determinations made before this case proceeds further before this Court.
Defendant further questions whether the Plaintiff has exhausted its own necessary administrative remedies found in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as required by the state’s own administrative procedures code before bringing the action to this Court in any capacity and if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court it turns out Plaintiff has not exhausted such necessary administrative remedies, Defendant is entitled to such executive determinations before Plaintiff brings this case, as it cannot consider the case to grant relief until such administrative remedies have been exhausted under the state’s and the executive department’s own administrative requirements. And the Court must comply with such regulatory requirements or it is waiving its judicial immunity.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a statute provides an administrative remedy, even though the terms of the statute do not make the exhaustion of the remedy a condition of the right to resort to the courts. (First Nat. Bank v. Board of County Comrs., 264 U.S. 450 [44 S.Ct. 385, 68 L.Ed. 784, 788-789].)
Either of these points should finally kill the case and we will raise these as the case moves on. So much more that came out of this hearing. We will go on later. If there are questions , You may reach us at 662-489-6554. Dr Weatherly
IMPORTANT Advisement: The information and materials included here are only from the personal experience, knowledge or observation of the provider who is not a licensed legal professional and are not given by the provider or to be construed by the recipient as competent legal advise or assistance and the reader is encouraged to seek and maintain access to competent legal counsel to assist in all decisions concerning his or her situation. And any monetary exchanges between the parties to this email are to be understood as the non-contractual, voluntary contribution or gift of either party.
A Declaration of Separation (Anonymous)
To The Governments & People of Earth:
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it. We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone. All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity. We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.
To The Governments of Earth:
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives. We are on every continent. This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life. For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us. – From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do. You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.
To The People of Earth:
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you. All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children. We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it. We wish you peace.
To Those Who Will Condemn Us:
We will ignore you. We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing? We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet. Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human. You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you. Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.
What We Believe
#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.
#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.
#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.
#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.
#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.
#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.
#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.
#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.
#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.
#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.
#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others – either directly or through intermediaries – and those who have no such desires.
#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging. Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing. We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice. We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm – ours and the old realm – although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds. We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first. We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.
Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.
We are The Free and The Unashamed.
Contact: Catherine Bleish
Liberty Restoration Project
HEADLINE: Announcing the Midwest Liberty Fest: Activism, Education and Celebration
August 5th, 2009: The DuQuoin (IL) State Fairgrounds will be brought to life by the Spirit of Liberty on October 9, 10 and 11 as grassroots activists from across the political spectrum and across the nation gather for the Midwest Liberty Fest. Participants will have the opportunity to learn from successful activists, hear from current candidates and celebrate the growing movement toward freedom and constitutional government.
The planning committee, sponsored by the Liberty Restoration Project, consists of activists who decided to provide the public with an event centered around ideas that unite us instead of divide us. The goal is to empower concerned citizens through the knowledge and real experiences of successful movers and shakers; everyone should be able to walk away with action items and project ideas in hand!
Some of the most well-known names in the liberty movement will be paired with up-and-coming leaders. From Adam Kokesh, the Iraq veteran and anti-war activist turned Congressional Candidate, to Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate for President and Constitutional Scholar, to Sheriff Richard Mack, the man educating our nation’s law enforcement on their Constitutional role, attendees will have the opportunity to learn from some serious movers and shakers.
Interested speakers, musicians or sponsors should send a letter of request to the planning team at the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Donations will provide transportation for speakers, location rental and insurance costs, and promotional materials such as radio and television ads. Keep your eyes on www.midwestlibertyfest.com for an up-to-the-minute confirmed speakers list and the upcoming announcement of our commemorative ticket.
Adam Kokesh (US Congressional Candidate for NM District 3)
RJ Harris (US Congressional Candidate for OK District 4)
Ed Martin (potential US Congressional Candidate for MO District 3)
Rosanna Pulido (US Congressional Candidate for IL District 5)
Adam Andrzejewski (Gubernatorial Candidate for IL)
Randy Stufflebeam (Gubernatorial Candidate for IL)
Dr. Tim Nerenz (US Congressional Candidate for WI District 2)
Michael Badnarik (former Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Constitutional Scholar)
Valinda Rowe (2nd amendment activist)
Dr. Carl Estabrook (Visiting Professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
Dr. Michael Coffman (President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI), and Executive Director of Sovereignty International.)
Gary Franchi (National Director / Managing Editor for Restore the Republic and Republic Magazine)
Sheriff Richard Mack (Author, Speaker and Advocate of State and individual rights.)
Jan Stover (Founder and Director of The Mothers Institute)
Sandra Crosnoe (Oklahoma grassroots activist, blogger, and social networking)
Brooke Kelly (video blogger for Restore the Republic)
Catherine Bleish (Missouri grassroots activist, executive director of the Liberty Restoration Project)
Martin Johnson (Illinois local activist and Jury Nullification Advocate)
Solo Acts and Bands
P O K E R F A C E
Pending speaking confirmation from
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Robert X Johnson
I would like to welcome all the new readers that have subscribed recently. In your honor and for the benefit of the rest of us, I am going to post several of the basic educational material that woke me up over the past 18 months.
I would like to start with two very simple yet eloquent video clips. The first is called the Philosophy of Liberty and is an extraordinary eye opener for the newly awake.
This next clip is an excellent history and explanation of the current banking system and why we must use 21st century technologies to develop a new transparent banking system.
Please get some tea, and sit back to watch these two introductory videos. Your future depends on you knowing what is really going on.