I have an issue with your latest nostates.pdf The link to :http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/rod-class-gets-fourth-administrative-ruling-govt-offices-are-vacant-all-govt-officials-are-private-contractors/23602
is a link to the Daily Paul web site and every link within the article does not exist. This article is old from 2012. Have these links been moved to another site that you are aware of? It would be nice to verify these stories claimed. If they no longer exist then how can I possible pass on information that has no link to back it up? It makes ones viewpoint very weak.
Fortunately, this information is still available directly from the source, Rod Class and his organization, so it is relatively easy to replace. It isn’t always so.
For example, the 1824 version of Webster’s Dictionary clearly states that the word “federal” is a synonym for “contract” — therefore, when the Founders were discussing the “Federal Government” — they clearly knew this and were openly discussing a government under contract to perform services.
The next edition of Webster’s Dictionary, just four years later, in 1828 — doesn’t have this crucial bit of information in it.
It disappeared. So if you don’t happen to have a copy of the 1824 Webster’s Dictionary, you will never know this factoid and even if you do, you won’t be able to prove it.
This is typical. This the way “THEY” operate.
When my husband and I revoked our election to pay federal income taxes the reference was something like 26 USC 6301 (A) (4) (g). Just a couple years later, it had shifted several sections and you had to read the pages around the original citation to find the information about revocation. Just recently, one of my students went looking for it and found it fifteen pages away from my original citation twenty years ago, and additional obfuscations in the language had been made. The right to revoke is still there, but it isn’t as clearly stated, either.
These are the common-as-dirt manipulations employed by the vermin. Some of it is innocent and just a matter of the constant changes and alterations that occur when new publishers and new editions of “amended” and “annotated” and “updated” codes and regulations and court cases are issued. As a result, when someone refers to the 1967 Congressional Record, you need to look at the 1967 Edition of the Congressional Record— because even with things that you would expect to be set in cement — everything changes. Information gets “archived”, “redacted”, “amended”, “re-ordered”, “re-published”, “re-worded”, “re-numbered” and sometimes outright deleted.
And not all of this is innocent. Some of it is very, very deliberate destruction of public records, usually using the excuse that it is an “issue” of “national” — that is, corporate — security.
If you don’t have a hard copy, you can be left with a doo-dad in your hair, so Job One as you begin your career as a researcher — cover your butt and retain hard copies of everything that is important.
If you are me, you retain as many hard copies as you can lay your hands on, and maintain libraries of these resources away from your home and out of sight. The Book Burners are never far away and who knows what will set them off on a rampage that destroys the proof of what they have done?
A small group of dedicated archivists — all volunteers — are plodding forward, page by page, scanning hundreds of thousands of pages of Congressional Acts, Court Cases, Dictionaries, Military Records and Manuals, Territorial and State of State Statutes— you name it, they are organizing and scanning and digitally archiving massive amounts of information specifically because our Enemies are Book Burners and Record Destroyers.
Some of the materials I cite are admittedly rare as hen’s teeth. You aren’t likely to just stumble across many books that are over 200 years old, and for the reasons just described, some of the citations I give may be difficult to track down, but you can bet that somewhere I have squirreled away hard copies.
And so should you.
And when someone like Larry Becraft tries to make a big deal out of not being able to find a particular citation and uses that as a basis to claim that I “lied” about anything — you should know better. You should know that all that proves is that he is: (a) an incompetent researcher; (b) too lazy to actually track it down, or (c) someone, somewhere has moved that particular piece of “cheese”— either because new editions or versions have been published since I noted the citation, or because the citation itself has been removed by those who use “editorial discretion” the same way they use “judicial discretion”.
See this article and over 1000 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.