Article Video – Public International Notice — Notice to Vacate March 4, 2021 By Anna Von Reitz

Help support the work of Anna and the Living Law Firm here https://paypal.me/annavonreitz/20 or look for the PayPal button on http://www.annavonreitz.com

Link to original article http://www.paulstramer.net/2021/03/public-international-notice-notice-to.html
Download and print http://annavonreitz.com/noticetovacate.pdf

Follow Ed’s channel on Rumble https://rumble.com/register/edmovius/
Follow Ed’s channel on LBRY https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@edmovius:4

Watch and comment on Rumble https://rumble.com/veehnz-public-international-notice-notice-to-vacate-march-4-2021-by-anna-von-reitz.html

Kp Message 3-9-21… “Absolutely supremely challenged by ‘running this blog’”

I’ve got to use the picture at left, with the Light right over me, because that’s what I feel I need right now.

I’ve been trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying and trying to get the blog so it doesn’t “zone out” and become “inaccessible” for minutes or up to an hour each day, but no matter all the calls I’ve made to Bluehost (my host) I just keep getting more and more and more and more and more and more and more things that I personally (not them) should try to fix what’s going on. So that’s the “Absolutely supremely challenged” part of this.

The solution(s) is (are) there, if the blog is to continue, but I’m going to have to try something different.

Usually, I’ve found that when these “blocks” come up, oftentimes it is a Guidance that is trying to move me in a new direction.

We’ll see how this works out.

I’d be grateful for any and all Light sent this way, and the Kp Blog’s way.

Aloha, Kp

Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits

Story at-a-glance

  • Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation
  • Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. According to legal experts, Pfizer is abusing its power
  • In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from the COVID-19 vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers
  • A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the Department of Health and Human Services, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less likely to admit fault with the vaccine
  • The maximum CICP payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person, and you first have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP kicks in

As reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.

WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.

Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:

  1. “Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer”
  2. Not apply its domestic laws to the company
  3. Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays
  4. Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects

Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice.

Aside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.2

Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its Power

According to STAT News,3 “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:4

“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.”

Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:5

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Don’t Expect Compensation if Injured by COVID-19 Vaccine

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),6 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.

A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.

Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,7 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.

CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly.

This too is a significant problem, as no one really knows what injuries might arise from the COVID-19 vaccine, or when, and this makes tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. Employers that mandate the COVID-19 vaccine will also be indemnified from liability for side effects. Instead, claims will be routed through worker’s compensation programs.

If the COVID-19 vaccines are as safe as the manufacturers claim, why do they insist on so much indemnification? Do they suspect or know something they’re refusing to admit publicly?

Side Effects Are Inevitable

Of course, those of us who have been looking at the science behind the mRNA technology used to create these novel “vaccines” have long since realized there are tremendous risks involved. For starters, mRNA vaccines are most accurately referred to as gene therapies, as this is what they are.

They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.8 Based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable.

For starters, your body sees the synthetic mRNA as “non-self,” which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

Free mRNA also drive inflammatory diseases, which is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable — i.e., slowing the breakdown of the RNA by encasing it in lipid nanoparticles — is likely to be problematic. The nanoparticles themselves also pose a risk. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, which is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.9,10

What’s more, previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.11 An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?

As detailed in my interview with Mikovits, the synthetic RNA influences the gene syncytin, which can result in:

  • Brain inflammation
  • Dysregulated communication between the microglia in your brain, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens
  • Dysregulated immune system
  • Dysregulated endocannabinoid system (which calms inflammation)

Pathogenic Priming and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

Another significant problem is that we don’t know whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. If pathogenic, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk of severe illness if they’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future. As reported in a December 11, 2020, Vaccine: X paper:12

“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.

Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.

Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”

A number of reports in the medical literature have indeed highlighted the risk of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). As explained in “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire? Due Diligence Warranted for ADE in COVID-19”:13

“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection.

Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …

ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described14 through a novel Fc?RII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state15 that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV.”

Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:16

“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”

So, to be clear, what all of this means is that if you get vaccinated, you may actually be at increased risk for serious illness if/when you’re exposed to any number of mutated SARS-CoV-2 strains in the future.

This is why the recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, may actually be quite dangerous. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm recently sent a public letter17 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner detailing these risks.

How mRNA Injections May Trigger Prion Disease

What’s more, in a paper18 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS. He writes:

“In the current paper, the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent …

Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases.

In particular it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.

In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats were identified and additional UG rich sequences were identified. Two GG?A sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.

The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”

mRNA Technology Has Potential to Cause Microvascular Injury

Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment19 to the FDA back in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”

He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots),” and that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”

“Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19?” he asks. “In 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels …

It appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.

Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart … Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies …”

Reports of Side Effects Are Rapidly Mounting

Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.

In the wake of 29 senior citizen deaths,20 Norway is reportedly considering excluding the very old and terminally ill from getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. According to the Norwegian Medicines Agency:21

“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health further noted that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” and that “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”22

In Sweden, hospitals in Sörmland and Gävleborg suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-February 2021 after a full quarter of the vaccinated hospital staff reported side effects. To prevent staff shortages and conduct an investigation, the vaccination push was temporarily paused.23 Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:

Persistent malaise24,25 Bell’s Palsy26,27,28
Extreme exhaustion29 Swollen, painful lymph nodes
Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions30,31,32 Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)33,34
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome35 Miscarriages36,37
Chronic seizures and convulsions38,39 Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication
Paralysis40 Sleep disturbances
Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form words Cardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders41
Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders42,43 Stroke44,45

In the U.K., there were 49,472 reported side effects to the Pfizer vaccine and 21,032 reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine as of January 24, 2021. As reported by Principia Scientific International,46 “For both vaccines this equates to 1 in every 333 people suffering an adverse reaction. This rate could actually be higher as some cases may have not been reported …”

Greatest Risk of All: Sudden Death

Perhaps most concerning of all are rapidly mounting reports of sudden death,47,48,49,50,51,52 mostly in the elderly but also in much younger, healthy individuals. In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021.

vaers results

As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.53 Of the 799 deaths reported within the U.S., one-third occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 21% of them were cardiac-related.

Pfizer’s vaccine was the most dangerous in terms of death, being responsible for 58% of deaths while Moderna’s vaccine accounted for 41% of deaths. Pfizer’s vaccine was also responsible for 75% of Bell’s Palsy cases, compared to Moderna’s at 25%.54

Curiously, based on the data submitted to the FDA, Moderna’s vaccine has a death rate 5.41 times higher than Pfizer’s, yet both are dramatically lower than the national average. As noted by The Defender, the dramatic discrepancy in death rates “deserves notice and requires explanation,” adding:55

“If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population …

Moderna’s screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine’s alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.

The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …

Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination.”

Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind

To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.56

If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.

While I won’t tell anyone what to do, I would urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why Pfizer is bullying nations into covering for any and all of its mistakes.

You can watch the video here:  Pfizer

Anna Von Reitz: Sheriffs, It Is Up To You . . .

Sheriffs, Deputies, It’s Up to You Many of our Sheriffs and Deputies who kept Good Faith with the people of this country have suffered disciplinary action when they have enforced constitutional guarantees and Public Law, because these foreign corporations benefit themselves by enforcing their private “corporate law” instead. This situation led to a watershed United …

Worth A Look: The Revolt of The Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium

In the words of economist and scholar Arnold Kling, Martin Gurri saw it coming. Technology has categorically reversed the information balance of power between the public and the elites who manage the great hierarchical institutions of the industrial age government, political parties, the media. The Revolt of the Public tells the story of how insurgencies, …

Two United States Constitutions – 1789 – 1871

Anyone who digs through American history can find the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, when the Crown/Vatican/Swiss Banking Cabal set up to rob everyone of their rights to land, thanks to the Crown Temple B.A.R. Broker/Attorners who made sure to set it all up for their Jesuit Rothschild Lord and Master.  All we have known is war, bankruptcy, and constant struggles with these stinking Banksters and their Lawyers.  A brief account of the history of the end of what we thought was freedom.  It’s still possible to have freedom, but it’s a constant conflict with the loathsome courts.

UNITED STATES Incorporated in England in 1871

UNITED STATES Incorporated in England in 1871 was governed entirely by private corporate law, dictated by the banks as creditors.

The U.S. is a Crown Colony. The U.S. has always been and remains a Crown (Roman Catholic Pope) colony. King James I, is not just famous for translating the Bible into “The King James Version”, but for signing the “First Charter of Virginia” in 1606 — which granted America’s British forefathers license to settle and colonize America. The charter guaranteed future German Roman Catholic Kings/Queens of England would have sovereign authority over all citizens and colonized land in America.

After America declared independence from the Crown, the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783 was signed. That treaty identifies the German Roman Catholic King of England as prince of U.S. “Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick (Germany’s Brunswick) and Lunebourg (Germany’s Lunebourg), arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire (Roman Catholic Church) etc., and of the United States of America“– completely contradicting premise that America won The War of Independence.
Article 5 of that treaty gave all British estates, rights and properties back to the Crown – Catholic Church Pope.

The Congress realized that the country was in dire financial straits, so they made a financial deal with the devil – the Crown (a.k.a. City of London Corporation – est. by the Catholic Church on Jan 1, 1855 ) thereby incurring a DEBT to the Pope. The conniving Pope and his central bankers were not about to lend the floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a way of taking back control of the United States of America and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed. With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.The people of the 50 Union states together maintain foreign sovereign immunity.  First, an important point needs to be made clear here. IN LAW, a fictitious entity can only deal with another fictitious entity, because only parties of equal standing can communicate in law. Read that again!

The UNITED STATES incorporated in England in 1871, because the default again loomed and bankruptcy was eminent.  So in 1871, the ten miles square was INCORPORATED in England. They used the constitution as their by-laws. Not as authority under the Constitution but as authority over the constitution. They Copy Righted, not only the Constitution but also many names such as, THE UNITED STATES, U.S. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA and many other titles as their own. This is the final blow to the original constitution. From here on out, the UNITED STATES was governed entirely by private corporate law, dictated by the banks as creditors.

More Bankruptcy Re-organizations: Then, in 1909, default loomed once more. The US government went to the Crown of England and asked for an extension of time. This extension was granted for another 20 years on several conditions. One of the conditions was that the United States allow the creditors to establish a new national bank. This was done in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Bank. This, along with the 16th Amendment, collection of Income tax, enacted February 25, 1913, and the 17th Amendment enacted May 31, 1913, were the conditions for the extension of time. The 16th and 17th Amendment further reduced the states power. The UNITED STATES adopted the Babylonian system.

The rights of the individual…are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944? A sovereign (the lawgiver) is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.” “A suit presupposes that the defendants are subject to the law invoked. Of course it cannot be maintained unless they are so.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907) 205 U.S. 349. This is known as the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. The government uses this all the time to protect itself against lawsuits. They create the statutes, and they only agree to be bound by certain statutes. If as a U.S. citizen, you do not have that right because you are property of the federal government. As a freeborn spirit, an American man/woman, you are the creator of the government, so you are immune from suit, unless you agree to waive this right and enter into a suit. Every time you file an legal action in a court, you agree to be bound by the rules of the court and the statutes of the jurisdiction you are acquiescing to. You waive any inalienable rights you may have and agree to be bound by the statutes. Read that again! Sovereign People defined: the political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collective capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives [see Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.] Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1396) Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act defined: subject to existing international agreements to which the U.S. is a party, and to certain statutorily prescribed exceptions, a foreign nation is immune from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts. [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1601-1611] Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1396) Read that again! Foreign states defined: Nations which are outside the United States. Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state.

The term “foreign nations,” as used in a statement of the rule that the laws of foreign nations should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule. A “foreign state” within statute providing for expatriation of American citizen who is naturalized under laws of foreign state is a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony, an alien country, other than our own. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C., 111 F.Supp. 593, 598.

Within defined: Into. In inner or interior part of, or not longer in time than. Through. Inside the limits of; during the time of. When used relative to time, has been defined variously as meaning any time before; at or before; at the end of; before the expiration of; not beyond; not exceeding; not later than. Glenn v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 515, 516. Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1692)

Without defined: Outside; beyond; in excess of. Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1692) Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

BY-LAWS defined: Rules and ordinances made by a corporation for its own government. 2. The power to make by-laws is usually conferred by express terms of the charter creating the corporation, though, when not expressly granted, it is given by implication, and it is incident to the very existence of a corporation. When there is an express grant, limited to certain cases and for certain purposes, the corporate power of legislation is confined to the objects specified, all others being excluded by implication. 2 Kyd on Corp. 102; 2 P. Wms. 207; Ang. on Corp. 177. The power of making by-laws, is to be exercised by those persons in whom it is vested by the charter; but if that instrument is silent on that subject, it resides in the members of the corporation at large. Harris & Gill’s R. 324; 4 Burr. 2515, 2521; 6 Bro. P. C. 519. 3. The constitution of the United States, and acts of congress made in conformity to it the constitution of the state in which a corporation is located, and acts of the legislature, constitutionally made, together with the common-law as there accepted, are of superior force to any by-law; and such by-law, when contrary to either of them, is therefore void, whether the charter authorizes the making of such by-law or not; because no legislature can grant power larger than they themselves possess. 7 Cowen’s R. 585; Id. 604 5 Cowen’s R. 538. Vide, generally, Aug. on Corp. ch. 9; Willc. on Corp. ch. 2, s. 3; Bac. Ab. h. t.; 4 Vin. Ab. 301 Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t., Com. Dig. h. t.; and Id. vol. viii. h. t.

A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution And Laws Of The United States Of America And Of The Several States Of The American Union by: John Bouvier Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
BYLAWS defined: Regulations, ordinances, rules or laws adopted by an association or corporation or the like for its internal governance. Bylaws define the rights and obligations of various officers, persons or groups within the corporate structure and provide rules for routine matters such as calling meetings and the like. Most state corporation statutes contemplate that every corporation will adopt bylaws. The word is also sometimes used to designate the local laws or municipal statutes of a city or town, though, more commonly the tendency is to employ the word “ordinance” exclusively for this class of enactments, reserving “by-law” for the rules adopted by corporations. Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 201)

The United States Constitution is an ordinance (or statute) within the Law of Nations. 2. The various State constitutions are ordinances (or statutes) within the United States Constitution, and are a part and parcel of the law of Nations. 3. “Public policy” is within the jurisdiction of the law of Nations. The Law of Nations is the science of the rights, which exist between Nations or States, and of the obligations corresponding to these rights. It will be seen how States, as such, ought to regulate their actions. We shall examine the obligations of a Nation towards itself as well as toward other Nations, and in this way we shall determine the rights resulting from those obligations; for since a right is nothing else but the power of doing what is morally possible, that is to say, what is good in itself and conformable to duty, it is clear that right is derived from duty, or passive obligation, from the obligation of acting in this manner. A Nation must therefore understand the nature of its obligations, not only to avoid acting contrary to its duty, but also to obtain there from a clear knowledge of its rights, of what it can lawfully exact from other Nations.

TREATY defined: international law. A treaty is a compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare treaties are for PERPETUITY, or for a considerable time. Those matters which are accomplished by a single act, and are at once perfected in their execution, are called agreements, conventions and pactions. 2. On the part of the United States, treaties are made by the president, by and with the consent of the senate, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur. Const. article 2, s. 2, n. 2. 3. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; Const. art. 1, s. 10, n. 1; nor shall any state, without the consent of congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power. Id. art. 1, see. 10, n. 2; 3 Story on the Const. Sec. 1395. 4. A treaty is declared to be the supreme law of the land, and is therefore obligatory on courts; 1 Cranch, R. 103; 1 Wash. C. C. R. 322 1 Paine, 55; whenever it operates of itself without the aid of a legislative provision; but when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, and either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule of the court. 2 Pet. S. C. Rep. 814. Vide Story on the Constitut. Index, h.t.; Serg. Constit. Law, Index, h.t.; 4 Hall’s Law Journal, 461; 6 Wheat. 161: 3 Dall. 199; 1 Kent, Comm. 165, 284. 5. Treaties are divided into personal and real. The personal relate exclusively to the persons of the contracting parties, such as family alliances, and treaties guarantying the throne to a particular sovereign and his family. As they relate to the persons they expire of course on the death of the sovereign or the extinction of his family. Real treaties relate solely to the subject-matters of the convention, independently of the persons of the contracting parties, and continue to bind the state, although there may be changes in its constitution, or in the persons of its rulers. Vattel, Law of Nat. b. 2, c. 12, 183-197.

A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution And Laws Of The United States Of America And Of The Several States Of The American Union by: John Bouvier Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
TREATY defined: A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare. Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, Cust. & Pat.App., 107 F.2d 819, 827; United States v. Belmont, N.Y., 301 U.S. 324, 57 S.Ct. 758, 761, 81 L.Ed. 1134. An agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state. Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L.Ed. 798; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 954, 57 L.Ed. 1274, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 397. A treaty is not only a law but also a contract between two nations and must, if possible, be so construed as to give full force and effect to all its parts. United States v. Reid, C.C.A.Or., 73 F.2d 153, 155. The term has a far more restricted meaning under U.S. Constitution than under international law. Weinberger v. Rossi, Dist.Col., 456 U.S. 25, 102 S.Ct. 1510, 1514, 71 L.Ed.2d 715. United States treaties may be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Art. II, Sec. 2, U.S. Const. States may not enter into treaties (Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1), and, once made, shall be binding on the states as the supreme law of the land (Art. VI, cl. 2). See Supremacy clause; Treaty clause. Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1602)
UNCITRAL – United Nations Convention On International Trade Law

SOURCE: TheLibertyBeacon.com

Ed Jewett: Resistance in Salem – The British Folded

Resistance and Retreat in Salem, 1775 “… “When they elected representatives, they did so on a day-to-day basis. It was the ultimate in term limits.” Using previously unreported archival information from town records, newspapers and letters, Raphael writes that in the summer of 1774, common citizens throughout Massachusetts seized political power by forcing every Crown-appointed official …

Matt Ehret: The Scientific (and Political) Hoax of Darwinism- A Tactical Talk Interview with Dr Gunter Bechly and Matt Ehret

The Scientific (and Political) Hoax of Darwinism- A Tactical Talk Interview with Dr Gunter Bechly and Matt Ehret Recently I had the chance to joins the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Gunter Bechly and talk show host Zain Khan for a lively discussion on the failures of the Darwinian model of evolution to account for the evidence …