The Fed Funny Farm, Part X - The Achilles Heel

I got 'em.

Folks, I've been shouting this "malarky" from the tops of the rooftops of the world for quite a while now...and now, we present proof of said "Malarky."  Just like the Chinese monks, I do not give you the answers.  I merely point to where you might find the answers for yourselves.  There are just two places I'd like to point you today, and one is known around the country as one of the best listings of businesses operating in any area - Manta.

See kids, you believe that you live in a little something called a "free democratic republic."  As said republic, "We the People" and our rights are governed and protected, as well as granted us without fail; by a little document we like to call "The Constitution of the United States"...our charter; our document of freedom and rights and such...except for one thing.  It's not even ours anymore, nor does it grant us diddly.  Because like I have said to you before, probably a coupla million times...the Government is not our Government...on any level, whatsoever.  It is a "municipal Corporation"...a fiction operating with the name "Government", operating under our assumptions that it controls all aspects of our very lives, such as when we live, when we marry, when we abuse our positions as parents, when we own property and vehicles, how much money we get when we retire, when we go to jail or remain free, etc.  Under that U.S. Government, there are smaller versions in each and every one of the States.  Each of these is also supplied with their own incorporations (and their own Constitutions too, for effect), under "the U.S. Corporation, and are, thereby, ALSO privately owned companies.  If this is so, we have been horribly duped, utilizing a scam so all-encompassing, it's impossible to ignore any longer, nor, will it be very easy to get people to believe..  As it is, a "Municipal Corporation", it is, as such, able to "be sued, and sue.:"  In other words, there is no judicial, sovereign, absolute, or any other kind of immunity to prosecution.  I will say that it can't be sued because it doesn't exist...mainly because it doesn't exist.  Hence the word 'FICTION'.

I know, I know...but look, even though I've said it before, now, I can give you a place to get the answers for yourself.

Let' start with your more local government.  Let's start with the city Government, mayors, city Countil members, etc.  Let's just use MY examples.  Then, you can go to my place and look up your own relevant Governments in your city County and State, and look up your own.  Go, after that, to looking up your FEDERAL Government as well, within the confines of "The District of Columbia.".  Then, mosey on over to the stock exchange, and let's see if any of them show up on the list.  I'm betting they ALL do.

Here, Des Moines, is your city "Government", in all its glory.

https://www.manta.com/c/mm5r9v6/city-of-des-moines
https://www.manta.com/c/mm2d9ks/city-of-des-moines
https://www.manta.com/c/mmqt3cm/city-of-des-moines
https://www.manta.com/c/mmd555r/city-of-des-moines

Note that they pretty much ALL say the same thing.  Privately Owned COMPANY/BUSINESS.

Whaddya say we just skooch over to the County of Polk, and see what happens there?

https://www.manta.com/c/mmqtfnt/polk-county
https://www.manta.com/c/mm45ngd/polk-county-human-services
https://www.manta.com/c/mm45ngd/polk-county-human-services
https://www.manta.com/c/mh5j6zv/county-government-offices-departments

Well would you look at that!  All "privately owned COMPANIES!"  Who knew?

Oh, oh, I just can't wait....How about the State, and our Government in Iowa?

https://www.manta.com/c/mb46wxp/secretary-of-state-iowa
https://www.manta.com/c/mh5vm0w/state-government-des-moines-iw


Sorry guys, sometimes, you just gotta hold the electric paddles right to their hearts to get them to wake the hell up and open their eyes.  Once again, a privately owned COMPANY.  Not the Government.  BUSINESS.

And, now, the cherry on the cherry on the Sunday...yes, I'm talking about your FEDERAL IRS offices, etc.  Hold on to your hats now...ready?

https://www.manta.com/c/mh4zlk6/united-states-government
https://www.manta.com/c/mh4x9mx/united-states-government-us-house-of-representatives

And yes...that was the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES...U.S. STYLE...again...a private business.

Bad news, I know...but there is a shining and silver-type lining to this eye-opener...as a Municipal Corporation, they can be SUED, IN THEIR ENTIRETY.  They are NOT immune to prosecution...in this country, or any other.  It's Ok.  You don't have to thank me.  Just file your lawsuits will you?  And when the District Court dismisses your action, especially on immunity grounds, you can ask the appellate court how its possible for a company to have immunity to prosecution...when they "sue" you...all the time!

But I don't expect that this will be enough for you...so I decided to lure you in, and give you some more things that you are more than welcome to look into and decide for yourselves.  Here, I am going to call-out a few myths that have more than been almost institution...as least, as far back as you and I remember.  Some of these things I've been relating to you FOR AGES.  The rest, I suspected, but never had the cohoneys to chew on for long.

I'd like to thank Teamlaw.net for giving us this information, and doing all the legwork for us.  He hasn't updated his site for quite a while now, leading me to believe that they may have gotten to him somehow, and shut him down.  Therefore, it's my CIVIC and MORAL duty to repeat all he had to say for him.  I suppose, like us, it's truly possible that he just up and quit trying to wake up the sheep of America, due to their absolute REFUSAL to see the truth, even when it's right under their very noses, seen with their very eyes, or even shoved down their tight throats. I truly hope it was the latter, though I tend to believe the very worst of what presents as "Government.", and the former is more likely.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 1:
The District of Columbia Act of 1871 incorporated the municipal government of the District of Columbia into a municipal corporation.

From time to time people ask us questions similar to the following:

“An initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only incorporates a local government (like Chicago or Seattle); how do you get that they formed a private corporation?”

If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present, look to the Act, in the past, not knowing its history, then merely imagine who are the parties involved, you might agree with the presupposition that the Act merely incorporated a municipality.  However, such a review will not help you understand the meaning of any actual Act; thus, to best understand what actually happened we follow our “Standard for Review” to first discover the history behind the relationship; and, second, we look to the terms and conditions of the Act, by reviewing the Act itself, to see how it fits in accord with law and our history.

Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (hereinafter, “DCOA”), we must first understand who are the parties involved in the relationship as described by the Act.  We are not going to delve into the Act here, in its entirety; suffice it to say, looking over the situation, we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction government’s Congress, as set by the Constitution for the United States of America.  The DCOA describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”.  The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses.  Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government; that is to say, the “territory” so provided for included both the land and its actual government.  Under that Act, Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory.  Then, on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed.  Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc.  The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly called this Act (of, February 27, 1801) the “District of Columbia Organic Act” or the “Charter Act of the District of Columbia” and recognized it as the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”.  Then, on March 3, 1801, a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being: Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal government (with its municipalities) of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision.  Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued.  Respectively, since 1801, the District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation” with its own government.

That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, ‘know the parties’.  What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to the question above.  We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves by their own research.

The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.”  With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law).  Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land (as constituted): they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union; which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members.  There were other problems; but, these three stand out from the rest.  That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review; however, the more you study the historical events of this time, the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened.  In the interest of time, space and the topic of this response, we will move on.

The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship.  Thus, we review the first paragraph of the DCOA; where:

Congress wrote:

That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.

Given that even the Supreme Court confirms that the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government”, so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time, a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 70 years?  The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!”  There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the “Charter Act” is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act.

Though historians can make history appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the actual records of the past.  Even Congress cannot change the actual history.  However, the records speak for themselves only if, and when, we study them.

When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the DCOA (and that which follows) is, the municipal corporation that was created is a private corporation owned by the actual government.  Further, the only government created in that Act was the same form of private government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct.  Thus, we coined the term, “Corp. U.S.”; to distinguish that corporation from the actual “original jurisdiction” government; as it was formed in accord with the Constitution for the United States of America.

We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in said Constitution, to pass and enforce virtually any law within the District of Columbia; which is almost complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers.  Thus, Congress can lawfully use Corp. U.S. as they see fit, within that portion of the ten mile square defined as the District of Columbia.  Respectively (through that authority); the members of Congress now wore two hats; one hat for their original jurisdiction government official seat and a second more effective hat as as a corporate board member titled with the same names: “Congressman”; “Representative” or “Senator”; the President also effectively wore two similar hats.

Thus, our historical records and laws clearly show that Corp. U.S. is not merely an incorporated municipality; rather, it is a private Corporation that was lawfully created by our original jurisdiction government

Myth resolved.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 2:
The United States Government is sovereign.

On the outset of this review we acknowledge that because “The United States of America” is a nation of sovereign people, it is a sovereign nation.  Though that fact alone should make it clear that the government is, and must remain, the servant of the people not their sovereign, Corp. U.S. promotes the ideology that it cannot be sued because it alleges that it is “Sovereign”.  That myth is easily resolved by reviewing the 1871 DCOA, under which, Corp. U.S. was created.  It clearly states that Corp. U.S. can be sued.  Respectively, the myth is resolved because sovereign cannot be sued within its own realm without its permission.  Nonetheless, we are not willing to rely on that alone to resolve the myth.  Instead, let’s review the three elements that define sovereignty in comparison to the government, Corp. U.S. and the people.

1. Sovereignty is a political power that is defined by: dominion, agency and possession:
1. “Dominion” is synonymous with “Land”, which is defined as:  “(A)n area of three dimensional space, its position being defined by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth’s surface.  ‘Land’ is not the fixed contents of that space, although…the owner of that space may well own those fixed contents.  Land is immoveable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable; it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible.  The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed or consumed, but the space itself, and so the ‘land’, remains immutable.”  Peter Butt, Land Law 9 (2nd ed. 1988) Reprinted in Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition;
1. The government of The United States of America was: formed by the Constitution for the United States of America; and is limited in its authority by said Constitution; which forbids the government from owning land with the exception of that which is necessary to accomplish the following: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.  Said Constitution, Article. 1. §. 8. Clause 17.;
2. Accordingly, when a territory (land) is acquired by The United States of America that land is held for dispossession to the people; who, under a proper claim are granted private Title (land patent) to the land; wherein, most of those patents (outside of the original 13 States & Texas; which came from foreign kings) were granted by the United States of America, under the hand and seal of the President of The United States of America;
3. Respectively, the land mass of The United States of America is secured by land patents (Titles) that grant the land to private individuals (and to their heirs and assigns);
2. “Agency” is the right, or authority, to act, influence, exert power over and/or control a specific domain.
1. The purpose the people gave for forming their Constitutional Republic form of government was, and remains: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, said Constitution’s Preamble; respectively, a review of said Constitution shows that: not only did the people never grant said government authority over the people or over their rights to Life, Liberty or Property, they reserved that all such rights, etc. remain with the people (see: amendments 9. and 10.);
2. The agency so granted to the government of The United States of America is limited to the specific authority the people collectively granted the government to act, for the people, through said Constitution; which only allows government the limited authority to administrate that small portion of the peoples’ collective sovereign authority necessary to accomplish the provisions of said Constitution;
3. Said governmental agency does not include agency over the private land owned and occupied by said people; and,
4. The people retain their private agency over the land they own.
3. “Possession” is the actual control or physical occupancy of a specific domain and the property appurtenant to the same.
1. The government of The United States of America does not possess the private land owned and occupied by said people; and,
2. The people possess the private land owned and occupied by them.
2. By definition, the government is not sovereign; and,
3. By definition, the people that: own, retain the agency over and possess the land (dominion) are sovereign.

Therefore, because even the original jurisdiction government of The United States of America does not possess any of the three factors, all of which are, necessary to Sovereignty (dominion, agency & possession), it cannot possibly either be sovereign or respectively, rule over the people (as a sovereign could do).

Nevertheless, even though said government is not sovereign, that does not limit the nation from being sovereign; because said people are sovereign and together those people form a “Nation of Sovereigns”; which “Nation of Sovereigns” used said Constitution to create a government (“of the people, by the people and for the people”) and to grant said government the collective administrative authority necessary for our government to stand in the world of nations representing the sovereign people of The United States of America; and to, in accord with said Constitution only, control the several States of the Union.

Therefore, government of “The United States of America” is not itself sovereign; rather, its officers are merely granted the authority to collectively administrate a small portion of the peoples’ sovereignty.

Respectively, when the original jurisdiction government created Corp. U.S. (in accord with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871), it did not possess authority to grant Corp. U.S. sovereign authority (see: Osborne vs Bank US, 22 US 738), it couldn’t possibly have granted Corp. U.S. sovereign authority.  However, as a private corporation, Corp. U.S. was granted the authority to sue and/or be sued.  We expect the reason Corp. U.S. consistently claims to be a sovereign is to imply the Sovereign’s advantage of not being able to be sued in their own domain.

Myth resolved.

Because Corp. U.S. is often referred to as just: “United States”; and, because court cases exist that recognize the “United States” as sovereign, it is at times important to review such cases for two things:

1. Does the nature of the case imply that it was ruled with regard to Corp. U.S.; or, was it ruled with regard to the nation itself?
2. Did the parties in the case that were attempting to sue the “United States” raise a reasonable argument to show the elements shared above that would limit such a ruling from being made to look as it it were made in favor of Corp. U.S. itself instead of the actual Nation of Sovereign People; which cannot be collectively sued.

The reason people raise such cases and then fail to present a proper argument that keeps the court from ruling on matters that do not apply to the case is that they do not know the law well enough to avoid such errors.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 3:

Before 1913 the Constitution of the United States of America had only 15 Articles of Amendment.  This Myth is perhaps more commonly know by Corp. U.S’. allegation that:

“The original 13th amendment was never ratified”.

Given the following three facts:

1. Corp. U.S. was incorporated under the District of Columbia Act of 1871 (hereinafter, “DCOA”);
2. Within the DCOA Corp. U.S. adopted its own constitution; which Corp. U.S. deemed the: “United States Constitution”; and,
3. Corp. U.S.’ new “United States Constitution” is missing the Nation’s 13th Article of amendment.

Respectively, with two principle exceptions, Corp. U.S.’ new constitution was identical in every way to the “Constitution of the United States of America”; those two exceptions were:

1. As noted above, the Constitution of the United States of America’s 13th Article of amendment is not included in Corp. U.S.’ new constitution; and,
2. Respectively, the Constitution of the United States of America’s 14th, 15th and 16th articles of amendment: are respectfully numbered: 13th, 14th and 15th in Corp. U.S.’ new constitution.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 4:
The 16th Amendment gave the government the right to tax without apportionment.

This myth was promoted by Corp. U.S. after its adopted its constitution’s 16th Article of amendment.

However, a review of the Supreme Court case rulings both before and after that amendment clearly show that no such authority was granted. Instead the amendment merely acknowledged that Corp. U.S. already possessed the right to so tax their agents and other parties with whom they had private contracts that authorized the same. 

Corp. U.S’. Myth 5:
The United States Senators that have served since 1913 are Senators of the government that was formed by the Constitution for the United States of America.

To understand this myth, first, notice where Senators come from.  Like other Corp. U.S. elected officials, U.S. Senators are elected from a popular vote; which means that their only real experiential qualification is they must: “Win the election.”

Of course, that means knowing the Constitution and/or having experience with the law-making process is not a qualification necessary for obtaining the office.  Respectively, given that most people so elected as U.S. Senators have little or no experience that would make them aware of the fact that Corp. U.S. is a corporation that was created under the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, instead they believe in Corp. U.S. Myth 1; respectively, the fact that, Corp. U.S. is not the government that was created by the Constitution for the United States of America completely escapes them.

Thus, when new Corp. U.S. officials take office (overwhelmed with work that needs to be done to face problems inherent to the office), their preconceptions (related to Corp. U.S. Myth 1) on arrival, make them woefully equipped for the tasks at hand.  Thus, they are indoctrinated with the assumed belief that whatever is already in place is not only lawful and proper but the natural order of things in our government.  Thus, as time passes the newbie imagines things are being done correctly; which is often not the case.  Accordingly, over time, if the people are not vigilante in their responsibility of limiting such offices to the authority lawful provided, the officers will begin to exercise authoritarian powers much as those that may have preceded them in that office.

In such cases, problems are compounded by the people failing to notice that Corp. U.S. is not our actual government; but, is merely the corporation the original jurisdiction government put in place (in 1871) to take care of the government’s business needs and aid them in the process of assimilating the South back into the country.  Of course, given that most of the functions of Congress are business needs, by 1913, virtually all of the functions of government were performed for the government by Corp U.S. (wherein the members of Congress and the President used only their corporate capacity).

Respectfully, in 1913, Corp. U.S. passed and ratified its own 16th and 17th amendments to its constitution.  That 17th amendment changed how Corp.U.S. Senators acquire office; and, from that time, Corp. U.S. Senators were elected by popular vote.  However, because the nation’s Constitution forbids Congress from any authority to change where Senators are elected, Corp. U.S’. 17th amendment cannot have been an amendment that could be posed, passed or lawfully ratified by an original jurisdiction Congress; respectfully, that amendment can only function as a Corp. U.S. amendment.  A physical verification of the record also shows that at the time of the alleged ratification, Corp. U.S. followed the same method of “ratification” that it did for the 16th amendment (i.e.: it was adopted by the members of Congress instead of ratified by ⅔ of the States).

Respectfully, from that day forth, Corp. U.S. Senators were elected by popular vote; while, the original jurisdiction Congress’ Senators for each State continue to be appointed by the respective State’s Senate or by the Governor of each State; as per, the Constitution for the United States of America (if in fact they are seated at all—in most cases, the seats remain vacant).

Corp. U.S’. Myth 6:
President Woodrow Wilson served as President of the United States of America in its original jurisdiction Constitutional Republic form of government for two full terms of office.

Though this topic is under construction, we will introduce this myth now my simply noting that President Wilson did so serve for one term.  However, after he was elected, by the Electoral College, for his second term, his election was confirmed by a Corp. U.S. only Congress; but, such a Corp. U.S. confirmation could not possibly lawfully qualify as confirmation into the original jurisdiction government’s presidential office for his second term; because that confirming body of congressmen included Senators that had no original jurisdiction capacity.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 7:
Federal Reserve Notes are money.

Though this myth is easily understood, debunked and resolved by simply understanding the facts of what money is and what Federal Reserve Notes (hereinafter: “FRNs”) are not, this myth is one of the most difficult myths to eliminate for three powerful reasons:

1. Acceptance; virtually everyone accepts and uses FRNs as the currency base for virtually all of their buy, sell and/or exchange transactions; just as if FRNs were actually money;
2. Ignorance; so many of the people believe the myth that they simply ignore the facts—not wanting to know the truth: and,
3. Apathy; that is to say: those that are caught up in the effects of this myth believe that even though it may be true that this is a myth—it works—so, they rhetorically ask: “What’s the big deal?”  “What difference does it make?”  Respectfully the concluding (even before they ask): “There is nothing we can do about it.”  And, there they remain, unmovable and unwilling to learn—because they are afraid of change!

Because this myth stands at the basis of virtually every financial transaction and is such a basic element of every day life, we tend to overlook the pernicious effect of the myth; as if it were a necessity of modern life.  However, this myth stands at the basis of the most incredible hoax ever foisted upon an unsuspecting people; wherefore, this myth must be uncovered and resolved before our nation is lost under the burden of this myth’s effect.  Of course, one must also understand this myth to either live free or in honor of the First Command man received from God.

To debunk this myth you must understand three things:

1. You must know the meaning of the word “money”; and understand its usage both in the Constitution (as the founding fathers intended it) and the effect the subsequent laws, etc. as they adjusted that meaning over time;
2. You must know what FRNs are, how they came into existence and how they are and have been legally and lawfully used over time; and,
3. You must know the effect the use of FRNs (instead of money) has had on our nation; which has been far greater than the mere introduction of economic fluctuations (inflation, recession, market crashes, etc.); their use has been the basis for a complete shift in the political structure of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a Communistic Oligarchy.

We know that the third element of that list seems almost impossible to most people; but, the facts and history are unmistakable.  So, being forewarned, please know that learning the truth will not only open the possibilities of resolving this myth, but, it will make it possible to learn how to use the system (even as it is currently managed) to help restore our original jurisdiction government to its Constitutional Republic form while maintaining peace, prosperity and functionality in both our nation and in our homes.  So, let’s get on with the debunking of this myth by reviewing its basic elements.

Though the word ‘money” is used in the Constitution 6 times, it is not therein defined; thus, to understand what the founding fathers intended when they so used that word, we must turn to sources like, The Law of Nations and dictionaries of the time period to discover the common usage of the word.  The established dictionary most used then was: Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary.  However, FRNs did not exist at that time; so, though that definition of money might be construed to include such things as what later became known as FRNs; by 1913, when the first FRNs were made, Congress had been implementing the authority so granted to the government, in accord with the Constitution for well over 100 years and the meaning of money (as used in the Constitution had been significantly refined.  Still, as time passed the applicability of the term, as used in the Constitution, became more refined (by respective laws, statutes, regulations, etc.) until its usual use was accurately published in BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Edition, p. 1157, as:

“MONEY. In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating medium of exchange, And does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74, 79, 81.”

Still, to understand what FRNs are, it is best to go back to their creation and learn from that source what their history tells us; and, to understand that history you have to first understand that Corp. U.S. was created in 1871 (see Corp U.S. Myth 1).  Then, in 1909, the parties that had bought up most of the Corp. U.S. bonds (which came due in 1912) began the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank (hereinafter “FRB”).  When those bonds came due in 1912, Corp. U.S’. Congress believed the FRB founders had created the FRB for the purpose of establishing a reserve for supporting future loans for Corp. U.S.  However, though the FRB of 1913 had plenty of money (gold and Silver coin minted by the United States of America Mint), the FRB made it quite clear that the FRB was not willing to loan any money to Corp. U.S.  Instead they offered that if Corp. U.S. wanted to learn about how the FRB operated, they would have to come down to the FRB headquarters on Jekyll Island, off the cost of Georgia, to find out about it.

The Jekyll Island offer went like this: the FRB would not loan money to Corp. U.S.  However, if Corp. U.S. could get the American people to use the FRB’s FRNs as if they were money, then the FRB would provide Corp. U.S. the use of such FRNs at an annual usage rate (rent).  In other words, Corp. U.S. could use (rent) the FRNs at a specific rate related to the arbitrary value printed on the face of the so called notes.  The deal included that the use rate (rental) would only accrue so long as the note was in circulation and it would then be due and payable.  The FRB also offered the following incentive: they guaranteed that if Corp. U.S. could get the people to accept these notes in circulation as if they were money, the FRB would guarantee their exchange by redeeming the notes from the people at their face value in United States of America gold or silver coin money.  Thus, so long as the notes remained in circulation, the rent accrued; and, until the rent was paid it compounded with interest at the same rate as the rent accrued.

Corp. U.S. accepted the offer.

To understand the deal let’s take a closer look: it works a lot like a car loan (rental) where the car is borrowed at the specific rate agreed upon.  You pay the rate of the rental agreement and you get to keep the car for the term of the agreement.  In the case of the FRB’s rental of their FRNs, Corp. U.S. could borrow (rent) the notes, which had a specific face value printed on them, and the rental rate was set respective of that value at the time of the agreement.  Let’s say the rental rate was set at 3%.  That means that as long as Corp. U.S. keeps those specific FRNs, they have to pay 3% of the notes’ face value per year.  Thus, if they were to borrow $100,000.00 total face value in FRNs for a day, they would have to pay $8.22 cents in rental costs for the use of those FRNs for that day.  If they were to hold such notes for a year, they would have to pay, $3,000.00 in rental costs for the use of the notes.  Anyone could return the FRNs to the FRB at any time and Corp. U.S. would only have to pay the agreed upon rental fee (plus any accrued interest) for the time the notes were held or were in circulation.  The deal also included the provision that if the people (anyone other than Corp. U.S.) were to turn the notes in to the FRB, the FRB would redeem the notes for their face value in real money (U.S. minted gold or silver coins) paid to the people that returned the FRNs.

In 1913, that was all there was to it.  The notes were rented and put into circulation much like a car is rented.  As you can see this appears to be a very good deal for Corp. U.S. if the people, in mass, omit the process of exchanging the FRNs for gold and silver coins—which they did.  And, for the next 20 years, Corp. U.S. continued to rent FRNs from the FRB; however, they never paid any of the rent due; so, over time, the interest on the unpaid debt continued to rise and compound.

In 1933, because Corp. U.S. continually failed to pay any of their obligations made in accord with their agreements with the FRB; accordingly when the FRB called the debt, Corp. U.S. went bankrupt to the FRB.  Corp. U.S. had amassed so much debt in unpaid rent and interest on said rent that it could not possibly pay its debt.  However, Corp. U.S. needed to continue to function!  Therefore, they went to the FRB to negotiate terms for getting a new set of notes into circulation.  Though the settlement offer arrived at was temporary, it allowed for a new set of FRNs to be printed and exchanged with the old notes that remained in circulation; and, Corp. U.S. had to agree to start at least paying some of the interest on the outstanding debt that forced them into bankruptcy.

Respectively, Congress announced an emergency “banking holiday” where the local banks throughout the country were closed and all of the FRNs were removed from the local banks and returned to the FRB; thus, beginning the end of the old style FRNs (redemption guaranteed in gold or silver coin).  During the “holiday” the banks were also restocked with new notes from the FRB.  The new FRB deal included new rented transaction instruments: also called, “Federal Reserve Notes”; but, where the FRNs the people were familiar with stated words to the effect of, “redeemable at any Federal Reserve Bank”, the new notes stated, “this note is legal tender for all debts public and private”.  The new FRNs were acquired by Corp. U.S. and circulated in virtually the same manner as the old FRNs; nonetheless, they were not redeemable; except in “like kind”.  Therefore, if the people were to take the new FRNs to the FRB they would receive a “like kind” exchange of notes, new for old.

Though the original FRB deal was better for the people, the new deal fit with the law of notes which only requires a like kind exchange.  To the people, because they knew they could always exchange the old FRNs for actual gold or silver coin money at the FRB, they became accustomed to the ease of exchange of the notes in commerce (using them like actual money used in monetary exchanges), they originally treated the FRNs just like money; again, because it was directly exchangeable for money.  However, though the new notes were perceived as being far less valuable and prone to inflation, they still functioned just like the old FRNs in commerce.  In reality, it is easy to understand why; both the new and the old FRNs were acquired in the same fashion, they were arbitrarily printed on paper and rented into circulation, much like cars are rented in car rental agreements.  The FRB simply no longer backs the FRNs with gold and silver coin money, due to Corp. U.S.’ bankrupt status; as a bankrupted entity Corp. U.S. can no longer compel performance on its debts.

To accomplish the FRB’s requirement that Corp. U.S. start paying at least the interest on their outstanding debt, Corp. U.S. needed a new source for funding; respectively, Corp. U.S. passed and enacted the Social Security Act of 1935; under which Act Corp. U.S. created new agency called the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) and started marketing a program the President called: “The New Deal”.  In reality, said SSA Act of 1935 was simply the means for generating the excess capital Corp. U.S. needed to start paying said outstanding interest.

Now, given the facts of the SSA cardholder relationship (see: Corp. U.S. Myth 9), let’s look at how SSC cardholders interface with FRNs and or Money; and, at this point take notice of the fact that FRNs are not now and never have been “money”; rather, from the actual records of our history we learned they are merely transaction instruments that were rented by Corp. U.S. (in their bankruptcy) and marketed into circulation.  On their face, they simply appear to be notes (likely made in compliance with the law of notes); respectively, their appearance leaves one with the belief that they may be bearer notes with no facially published due date; which would imply that they are due and payable on demand.  And, whereas their specific conditions of existence are not otherwise described on the note, they can only compel redemption in like kind.  That is to say, if you present them to their maker you can only count on getting back more notes of the same nature.  Whereas the note was generated for Corp. U.S., who remains under the control of its 1933 bankruptcy, the note cannot be an instrument of substance; rather, it remains a rented transaction instrument signifying said bankruptcy debt.  In other words, the FRB arbitrarily creates FRNs (out of thin air) so it can rent them to Corp. U.S.’ to use as instruments of exchange to manage their bankruptcy.

Though the FRN may appear to be a debt instrument, in reality it is simply an official transaction instrument used to formally exchange debits and credits between Corp. U.S. agencies (see: Patriot Myth 22).  It therefore requires no backing and can be generated in accord with the needs for its flow in circulation.

The bottom line: FRNs are not money; rather, they are merely rented transaction instruments used by Corp. U.S. to account for and track their agencies as they build up assets; however, that subject is elemental to the following: “Corp. U.S. Myth 9.”

To fully understand this topic you must continue and read: Corp. U.S. Myth 9.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 8:
The Government of the United States of America went bankrupt in 1933.

Though this topic is under construction, we will introduce the facts now my simply noting that: by 1920 all of the officers serving in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the original jurisdiction government had been replaced with Corp. U.S. only officers and, respectively, Corp. U.S. abandoned the constitutionally set Treasury of the United States of America.  Thus, all of the original jurisdiction government seats were vacated.  Further, the debt in question in the bankruptcy was privately agreed to between Corp. U.S. and the private Federal Reserve Bank; and, it was Corp. U.S. that failed to pay any of the rent and/or interest on that rent, so agreed upon, that was the cause of the bankruptcy.  Accordingly, the original jurisdiction government never had any involvement with either that agreed upon debt or with the following bankruptcy that was caused by Corp. U.S’. failure to pay their obligation to that debt.  Respectfully, today, not only does the original jurisdiction government have nothing to do with that debt (and its related bankruptcy), Corp. U.S. owes the original jurisdiction government (and respectively the people) more money than there is on the face of the planet.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 9:

Social Security participation is mandatory.

This is myth has been regularly promoted by Corp. U.S. for many years; however, no law supports this myth.  From its inception the Social Security system has been maintained as a voluntary participation system.  In fact, because of the following elemental facts, neither the original jurisdiction government nor Corp. U.S. could possibly lawfully make such a program mandatory.

1. All authority in government comes from the people.
2. The Constitution forbids government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.
3. The Constitution forbids government from interfering with the obligations of contracts.
4. None of the people, either individually or collectively, possess the authority to mandate that any other man, woman or child must hold a government created name, number or card in order to live, own property or privately transact any form of relationship with any other party.
5. If the people do not possess a particular authority, they cannot possibly grant that which they do not possess to the government.

Therefore, because neither you nor I, nor any other party possesses the lawful authority to mandate such an obligation upon any other man, woman or child, the people cannot collectively possess such an authority; accordingly, though neither the original jurisdiction government nor Corp. U.S. can possibly mandate the Social Security system upon the people, no law limits Corp. U.S. from offering such a Social Security card (hereinafter “SSC”) holding opportunity from the people; should the people individually voluntarily accept such a relationship when offered.

In fact, though participation in the system can only be required if you want to claim a benefit that is only provided within the system, recent events almost make this myth a reality.  The recent events we are referring to are those authoritarian acts related to Homeland Security and Øbama Care.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 10:
The Social Security card is: “your Social Security card;” and/or, the Social Security Number is: “your Social Security Number.”

On the onset of creating a cardholder relationship, the Social Security Administration (hereinafter: “SSA”) delivers documents to potential cardholders that include the Social Security card (hereinafter “SSC”).  Those documents make it quite clear that the “Social Security card belongs to the United States government” and not to you (the man, woman or child to whom the envelope containing the SSC is delivered).  Further, virtually every SSC that has ever been issued clearly states, right on the card, words to the effect of:

“This card belongs to the United States government and you must return it if we ask for it.”

A close review of the law proves out this exact same point; both the SSC and the Social Security Number (hereinafter “SSN”) are the property of the Corp. U.S., through its agent, the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”).  Regardless of what you and or our society have come accustomed to calling it—there are no exceptions!

But, that is not the worst thing about this myth.  The worst thing is that by getting you to think of the SSC as “your card”, and/or of the SSN as “your number”, they get you to ignore the actual facts and nature of the relationship.

So, let’s go back and review that relationship from its historical beginning; which we referred to at the end of our presentation of Corp. U.S. Myth 6, above.  Therein we noted that when Corp. U.S. went bankrupt to the Federal Reserve Bank (hereinafter: “FRB”) the FRB required that Corp. U.S. start paying at least the interest on their outstanding debt.  To do so, Corp. U.S. needed a new source for funding; respectively, Corp. U.S. passed and enacted the Social Security Act of 1935; under which Act Corp. U.S. created new agency called the SSA and started marketing a program the Corp. U.S. President called: “The New Deal”.  In reality, it was simply the means for generating the excess capital Corp. U.S. needed to start paying said outstanding debt’s interest.

However, the program had far further reaching effects for the people of the United States of America and the world.  Prior to Corp. U.S.’ implementation of said Act, neither the government nor Corp. U.S. had the power or authority to control the people; and, Corp. U.S. continued to manage the affairs of government in the frame of the Constitutional Republic.  However, notice what happened as they implemented the Social Security program.

Using a SSA supplied SS-5 application form, anyone can apply for a cardholder relationship for either themselves or for any other qualifying party.  The Social Security Administration uses the information they take off of such SS5 forms to “create a name and number”, which the SSA registers, in a database of cardholders, along with relevant information regarding the respective application.  The SSA then prints said name and number on a pre-printed Social Security card (hereinafter “SSC”) and sends a package including the SSC to its recipient cardholder.  The recipient receives the package.  The contents of the package (including the SSC itself) plainly reserves that the SSC does not belong to the recipient; rather, the SSC remains the property of Corp. U.S.  The package also plainly instructs the recipient to verify their acceptance of the relationship by activating the SSC with a signature act; if the recipient is willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with the SSC; which include: the SSC is to be held in a safe place until such time as its actual owner wants it back.  The SSC is not transferable and the SSC cannot be used in any unlawful way.  Corp. U.S. also reserves the right to request the return of the SSC at any time—and that is all.

Looking over this relationship, one will discover all of the elements of a Revocable Trust (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole) are clearly part of this relationship.  Therefore, the SSA created relationship inherent to the SSC cardholder relationship is that of a Trust, which trust remains an agency of Corp. U.S.under Corp. U.S’. direct control; through congressional acts.  Corp. U.S. publications regarding the relationship also make it quite clear that: ‘the name and number on the card uniquely distinguish the cardholder (the trust), and its account, from any people with the same or with a similar name.’

Now, given the facts of the SSA cardholder relationship, let’s look at how SSC cardholders interface with FRNs and or Money; and, at this point take notice of the fact that FRNs are not now and never have been “money”; rather, from the actual records of our history we learned they are merely transaction instruments that were rented by Corp. U.S. (in their bankruptcy) and marketed into circulation.  On their face, they simply appear to be notes (likely made in compliance with the law of notes); respectively, their appearance leaves one with the belief that they may be bearer notes with no facially published due date; which, by law, indicates that they are due and payable on demand.  And, whereas their specific conditions of existence are not otherwise described on the note, they can only compel redemption in like kind.  That is to say, if you present them to their maker you can only count on getting back more notes of the same nature.  Whereas, the note was generated for Corp. U.S., who remains under the control of its 1933 bankruptcy, the note cannot be an instrument of substance; rather, it remains a rented transaction instrument signifying said bankruptcy debt.  In other words, the FRB arbitrarily creates FRNs (at will, without actual monetary value or substance) so it can rent them to Corp. U.S.’ to use as instruments of exchange to manage their bankruptcy.

So, let’s take a look at the actual relationships wherein FRNs are used; starting with the employer employee relationship; because, that is the source where most people come into contact with the FRNs; or, with some instrument representing the same:

Following the “Standard for Review” let’s review the parties:

1. The employee is a person identified by its name and SSN, therefore it is simply an agency trust of Corp. U.S.
2. The employer is ultimately just another agency for Corp. U.S.  To show this we remind you the employer is a person (company, corporation, individual) that has an Employer Identification Number (hereinafter “EIN”).  Originally the EIN was issued by the Social Security Administration in accord with the Social Security Act of 1935, today they are issued on application by IRS; all such numbers are ultimately related to, and operated under an SSN or another EIN; thus, all such parties with such numbers (Taxpayer Identification Numbers (hereinafter “TIN”)) are merely agencies of Corp. U.S.

In accord with the terms of the employment agreement between such employers and their employees, the employee provides the contracted goods and or services and the employer remunerates the funds required by the agreement.  Now considering that the relationship is in reality made between two separate agencies of the same organization (Corp. U.S.), is there any need for money in such a transaction?

The answer is: “No.”  The transaction could easily be (and often is, through related banking transactions) completed by a debit entry from the one agency (employer), which is balanced out by a credit to the other agency (employee).  No money is needed.  However, where there are hundreds of millions of such agencies, tracking them in 1935 would have been impossible without some device that could be totally controlled by the specific agencies involved in the transactions themselves.

Enter the FRN.  Though it appears to be a debt instrument, in reality it is simply an official transaction instrument used to formally exchange debits and credits between Corp. U.S. agencies.  It therefore requires no backing and can be generated in accord with the needs for its flow in 

circulation.

The final step: once the employee has been remunerated with such “funds” they can go to a merchant and exchange the funds for hard assets, like: food, shelter, clothing and transportation.  In virtually every case today, such exchanges are made with other Corp. U.S. agencies; which agencies are exemplified by their own respective TINs.  Thus, again, no money is needed and the FRN or any other instrument or respective accounting representing the same will suffice.

Now, at this point, it is extremely important to notice that though each such so created trust started out merely holding the SSC the SSA initially provided, as a matter of law, all of the property ever subsequently acquired through the use of such a cardholder’s name and/or SSN also becomes the property of such cardholder; just like the SSC; and, so, all such property remains the property of the agency trust’s beneficiary.  In other words as a matter of law:

Corp. U.S. is the lawful owner of all property acquired through the use of a SSN.

Respectively, given the fact that virtually all transactions made in the United States today are made by someone using a SSN; and, that situation is compounded by the fact that they also make those transactions either using FRNs or using instruments derived from the use of such FRNs.  Wherefore, ask yourself: “What do you call a form of government wherein the government or its agencies own virtually all of the personal property held within the regime?”

The answer is: “Communism.”

Therefore, as noted above, the worst thing about this myth is when you think of the SSC as “your card” and/or of the SSN as “your number” you ignore the facts and nature of the actual relationship; that is:

1. As a matter of law, the SSC is now and will always only be the property of Corp. U.S.
2. The Social Security cardholder was created by Corp. U.S. to:
   1. hold Corp. U.S’. SSC in trust;
   2. generate excess capital (see: paragraph 1. of the Social Security Act of 1935); and,
   3. create an agency relationship between the cardholder and Corp. U.S.;
      the controlling elements of which agency relationship are:
      1. Corp. U.S retains ability to control the trust by terminating it at any time; and,
      2. Corp. U.S. retains the ability to control distributions from the trust to its beneficiary by, at any time:
         1. adjusting F.I.C.A.; and/or,
         2. by adding other statutory controls (as taxes, etc.) that will compel distributions from the trust to its beneficiary (Corp. U.S.).
3. As the Beneficiary of all such agency trusts, Corp. U.S. retains actual ownership of all property that is ever acquired through the use of the SSC and/or the SSN.

Again, the worst thing about this myth is when you think of the SSC as “your card” and/or of the SSN as “your number” you ignore the fact that, as a matter of law:

Everything you thought you owned actually belongs to Corp. U.S. !!!And, though you can live in a Constitutional Republic you have voluntarily chosen to
live under the communistic control of Corp. U.S. !!!

Corp. U.S’. Myth 11:
“Your Social Security” is “Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance.”

The Supreme Court has already well ruled on this topic acknowledging that there is no Social Security: insurance; retirement or any other kind of contractual entitlement program related to Social Security Benefits.  In fact, they showed that there is no Social Security fund into which funds are taken from paychecks; rather, the F.I.C.A. funds (deducted from taxpayer’s paychecks) go directly into the general funds of the Corp. U.S. Treasury.  Respectively, all funds taken in accord with the Social Security Act of 1935, et seq. are directly placed into said Treasury; where Congress is free to use them for any lawful purpose they desire; just as they would with any other funds held therein.

For more information about what the Social security program is, be sure to review Corp. U.S’. Myth 9 (above).

Corp. U.S’. Myth 13:
“Barrack Øbama was lawfully seated as the President of the United States.”

To resolve this myth we must first understand what the requirements are for lawfully seating a President of the United States.  To ascertain those requirements, we turn to the United States Constitution at: Article 2 § 1. Clause 5, which states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President… .”

Though the eligibility requirements for seating a U.S. President are self-explanatory, the meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” came into question when the Democratic National Committee ran Barrack Øbama as their candidate for President in the 2008 and 2012 elections.  Because the phrase in question is not defined in the Constitution, Congress failed to vet that issue as it related to Barrack Obama.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654 said: “In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.” … “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”  Wherefore, we can easily see that the definition of that phrase (natural born Citizen) must be derived from usage of the phrase itself as the framers of the Constitution intended it at the time when they wrote the Constitution.

Respectively, to begin our discovery of the meaning of the phrase we need to simply look at the phrase itself and see if its meaning is not defined by simply applying the English Language rules.  That review reveals that the phrase: “natural born Citizen”, is a noun phrase based on the noun: “Citizen”, combined with the adjective modifiers: “natural born”.  Therefore, we look to the conditions set by natural birth and ask the question regarding those modifiers: “What conditions of "natural birth" limitedly define the noun "Citizen"?”  Respectively, we find that the only condition of natural birth that defines the nature of one’s citizenship is the condition where both the child’s Mother and Father are citizens of the same country.  That is to say, the citizenship of a child is an automatic function of its natural birth only when, at the time of the child’s birth, both the child’s Mother and Father are citizens of the same country.  Respectively, in all other conditions of birth, where the parents are not citizens of the same country, the citizenship of the child is a function of law; not the nature of its birth.  Thus, we discover that the phrase: “natural born Citizen”, is, in fact, a very unique and definitive phrase that, throughout the world, means exactly the same thing today that it meant when the framers of the Constitution wrote the Constitution.  At that time we canfollow the Supreme Court’s admonition and look to old English law where we discover that: “Natural born Citizen” is a class in the English peerage system that is defines its members as those people born to parents both of whom are citizens of Great Britain.  That law also notes that the class was derived from “ancient Roman Law” where, to this day, it states that a natural born Citizen of Rome is a person that was born to two parents both of whom are citizens at the time of that child’s birth.

In spite of that fact, since the Democratic National Committee ran Barrack Øbama as their candidate for President, the definition of the term: “natural born Citizen”, has been attacked as if it might have all sorts of potentially different meanings; and, as shown in: Corp. U.S. Myth 12, a number of courts have given some very different opinions of the meaning of the phrase.  Still, as we showed in our review of 11 of those cases, those courts lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to review that phrase with anything more than their moot opinions.  Respectfully, we hereafter show that a review of the circumstances surrounding the framers of the Constitution will easily prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the framers meant the phrase to mean exactly what the English Language indicates that it means to this day: ‘A “natural born Citizen” is any person that was naturally born of their Mother whose Mother and Father were both citizens of the United States of America at the time of the child’s birth.’

Nonetheless, on, January 20, 2013, Corp. U.S.’ Congress seated Barrack Øbama as President of the United States (Corp. U.S.), for his second term in that office.  However, the fact that Mr. Øbama’s father was never a citizen of the United States makes it impossible for Mr. Øbama to be “a natural born Citizen” of the United States; therefore, the members of Congress that so seated Øbama in the office of President, absent constitution’s required vetting of that issue, each violated the Constitution by both failing to vet Barrack Øbama’s candidacy and by seating him in spite of the fact that his Father was never a Citizen of the United States.

Respectively, each member of Congress is now (2014) subject to an action seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto; which would remove each such member of Congress from their respective office.  Accordingly, a process called “Operation Clean Sweep” was initiated in December 2012; but, too few people actually took the necessary steps to fulfill the needs of that process.

Please remember, Team Law is here to help you learn how to learn the Law from its source; so, you can apply it to preserve your freedom and our nation.  But before anyone can apply the law, they have to first know what it is and how it can be applied. Still, no one can do that for you.  That means that you have to take the first step; by learning how to learn the law.  Then you have to actually learn the law and apply it.

The biggest problem we have in our nation today is ignorance combined with appathy.  When you start learning the law, you will discover that it can be applied to save our rights and our nation.  Respectively, it is up to each of us to do our part.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 14:
“The consensus today is the phrase “natural born Citizen”, found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution for the United States of America means: ‘A citizen of the United States that was not naturalized’.”

This myth has been promoted by members of the Corp. U.S. Congress since they seated Barrack Øbama as President of Corp. U.S. on January 20, 2009.

Corp. U.S’. Myth 16:
The feds adopted the “Common Core” education standards and the “No Child Left Behind” federal education law to improve the quality of student education in America.

This myth was promoted by Corp. U.S.

The feds allege that they adopted the “Common Core” education standards and the “No Child Left Behind” federal education law to improve the quality of student education in America; but, is that the effect of those programs?  We believe history has proven, that is not the case. Quite frankly, the exact opposite is true.

See ya soon, with this info, criminals!