April 9, 2021
4/9/21, 7:07 PM
You sent
None cared who signed it this time... They should...
Toy Xel'ha Peigne
Curtis
what's going on brother?
April 9, 2021 4/9/21, 7:26 PM
You sent
You sent
April 9, 2021 4/9/21, 7:59 PM
You sent
April 9, 2021 4/9/21, 10:28 PM
You sent
April 10, 2021 4/10/21, 7:00 PM
You sent Muur Nation No Censorship 4Ever #2 By Noble Terrell Ali Bey Noble Terrell Ali Bey shared a post.
April 10, 2021 4/10/21, 7:31 PM
You sent
You sent
April 11, 2021 4/11/21, 10:45 AM
You sent
Dear Friends, For an entity to become a corporation under federal law, there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation. There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating either the "United States" or the "United States of America". In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District of Columbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not one and the same. In that Act of 1871, Congress also expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm... In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941), the Supreme Court wrote: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/312/600.html "We may say in passing that the argument that the United States may be treated as a corporation organized under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained as not to merit serious consideration ." Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have originated in the definition of "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union See Paragraph 5 quoted here: "5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law." Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further evidence that the "United States of America" are plural, as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the author of that definition switches to "United States" in the second sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings: http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm... However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum, and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again, be very wary of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the statute defining the required enacting clause: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here: "no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law". That statement is not only correct; it also provides another important clue: Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States" to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing upon the "United States of America" to sue, or be sued, as such. Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term "United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles: Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America." Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” [end excerpt] When they came together the first time to form a Union of several (plural) States, they decided to call themselves the "United States of America". Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished "United States of America" from "United States" in Congress assembled. The States formally delegated certain powers to the federal government, which is clearly identified in those Articles as the "United States". Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to the 50 States of the Union, and the term "United States" refers to the federal government. The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used in correct contradistinction to "United States": http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts, the consistent use of "United States" to refer to the federal government carries enormous weight. Title 28 is the latest word on this subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law on June 25, 1948. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land. To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion, the entity "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" incorporated twice in the State of Delaware: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp The main problem that arises from these questions is that United States Attorneys are now filing lawsuits and prosecuting criminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] but without any powers of attorney to do so. Compare 28 U.S.C. 547 (which confers powers of attorney to represent the "United States" and its agencies in federal courts): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html They are NOT "United States of America Attorneys", OK? First of all, they do NOT have any powers of attorney to represent Delaware corporations in federal courts; Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so and Congress never conferred any powers of attorney on them to do so either. Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented by their respective State Attorneys General; therefore, U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent any of the 50 States of the Union, or any of their agencies, either. They are "U.S. Attorneys" NOT "U.S.A. Attorneys", OK? Accordingly, it is willful misrepresentation for any U.S. Attorney to attempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic]. And, such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act at 28 U.S.C. 530B: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html There are quite a few "activists" running around the Internet claiming that the "United States" and the "United States of America" are both corporations. These claims are not correct, for the reasons already stated above. A similar error occurs when these so-called “activists” cite the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only “proof” that the “United States” was incorporated by Congress. Here’s the pertinent text of that statute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html As used in this chapter: ... (15) "United States" means -- (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. [end excerpt] First of all, note well that the stated scope of this definition is limited to “this chapter” i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28 – Federal Debt Collection Procedures. Overlooking the limited scope of such definitions is a very common error among many, if not all self-styled experts. At best, this section cannot be used as evidence that the federal government should be treated as a valid corporation for all other intents and purposes. It takes a LOT more text than this one limited definition to create any federal corporation! Compare the original Statutes at Large that created the Union Pacific Railroad Company, for example. Secondly, from the evidence above it should already be clear that the “United States” (federal government) is not now, and never has been, a federal corporation. The statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 merely defines the term “United States” to embrace all existing federal corporations. Because the United States was not an existing corporation when Congress enacted section 3002, that statute did not create and could not have created the United States as a federal corporation in the first instance. Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court told Congress that it was barred from re-defining any terms that are used in the federal Constitution. “United States” occurs in several places, because it is central to the entire purpose of that Constitution. Therefore, the legislative attempt to re-define “United States” at section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because it violates the Eisner Prohibition. Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies, which render it null and void for vagueness. Here they are, in case you missed them: “United States” means … an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or “United States” means … an instrumentality of the United States. It is a fundamental violation of proper English grammar to use the term being defined in any definition of that term, and such a violation has clearly happened here. If you don’t yet recognize the tautologies, then change one part of this definition to read: The term “United States” here also embraces any instrumentality of the federal government. At the very least, this minor change eliminates the tautology and removes the vagueness. Nevertheless, such an attempt to re-define the term “United States” still violates the Eisner Prohibition. For a newspaper-level Press Release which further explores some of the many legal ramifications of these widespread errors, please see this Internet URL: http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a) http://www.supremelaw.org/.../private.attorney.general.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Isaiah Israel
You sent
You sent
You sent
mb marco bellini
April 11, 2021 4/11/21, 9:19 PM
You sent
Wheres it at biden
Isaiah Israel
April 12, 2021 4/12/21, 10:44 AM
You sent Ive said this 1000 times United we stand but divided we fall One of the greatest myths is that European Greeks are responsible for ending Kemet. The fall of Kemet--from which she never truly revived--came at the hands of the Black Persians ( Achaemenids), not the Greeks. You will find that throughout history, only a mighty Black race is capable of defeating a mighty Black race. It is only when they have weakened each other, that the Europoids come in and steal the spoils of war. By the 6th-century bce, Achaemenids were the last Black stronghold in West Asia. The Namu (so-called Beige Aryans) had slowly been flooding the land from the north. To restore Black control, the Achaemenids conquered the entire region of West Asia. Despite the racist attitudes of the Aryan nomads in West Asia, the Achaemenids were not Black Supremacists, but idealistic. They thought they were going to unite all the races of man. They then pushed their conquests into Europe and into Africa. It was the Achaemenids who were responsible for dethroning Kemet as the greatest power of antiquity. It is also important to note that the Greeks never defeated the Achaemenids directly. The Achaemenid empire was destroyed by a combination of Kemetic revolts and Dravidian uprising. After the struggle, the Namu (Beige Aryans) allied with the Greeks to dismantle the unstable Achaemenid Empire. The Greeks never actually conquered an independent Kemet. They took control of a Kemet that was already 200 years weakened by colonization from the Achaemenids and whose northern coast had long been home to many Greek soldiers who settled there as mercenaries for the 26th-dynasty. The lesson to be learned here is that Europoids & Namu are only able to come into control of Blacks AFTER Blacks have been weakened severely by fighting each other. That was the case of Kemet, the Achaemenids, the Songhai Empire, the Swahili States, the Oyo Empire, etc. They all first suffered from Black-on-Black self destruction. The Europoids and Namu were simply vulture like opportunists who took advantage of the weakened states.