yourapostille

8/8/2019 YourApostille

1/17

Your Apostille and Reaffirmation:

There seems to be great deal of confusion when it comes to the subject of the reasons for,the procedures in obtaining, the use of, and the authority of the apostilled Reaffirmation of Dual Citizenship and Renunciation of Attempted Expatriation that you now possess.

The probable main cause of the confusion may lie in the fact that the procedure weperform is actually 3 separate documents in one, and their authentication is based inthe International Law that present Government Officials not only do not want you toknow, but with which they may even refuse to obey and comply. Another point of confusion may also lie in the fact that most people seem to believe that we areauthenticating a Private Citizen's Statement, but that is not exactly the case. What we areactually doing has nothing to do with the Private Citizen whatsoever. We are merelyfulfilling the requirements of the International Law, and once satisfied, we then havea Private Citizen's Statement that is internationally authenticated and registered asan "Official Public Record Document of the United States of America".

The proper completion of this international procedure results in an internationallyauthenticated and registered Document that has been certified by a State (one of theorganic United States/Union). This document is the actual Apostille. Because Congresshas the lawful authority to make constitutionally compliant Treaties, which become Laws of the United States of America, all States of the Union (United States/Union) are required toobey those Laws. This is the reason that this procedure has, does, and will continue towork.

The most important thing to realize is that this entire procedure is completedwithout the Private Citizen ever having to defend, in any way, their "Reaffirmation..." which is being ultimately authenticated, registered, and certified.However, if a Private Citizen should choose to make a false, unjustified, or bogusstatement, those receiving the document will have ten (10) days to dispute such astatement. For this reason, it is important to alwa ys remain factual in your statements.

Now that you are the proud owner of an Apostilled "Reaffirmation...", you may wonder whatto do with it and just what its authorities, powers, and lawful effects are. Quite simply, anApostille lends superior authentication to a document on an international level. There will befound no greater authentication procedure than an Apostille, as virtually the entire Familyof Nations has gotten together and determined that this procedure offers the best method of authenticating a Country's documents.

The first natural question is why would an American need to authenticate their document asif it were going to be used in a foreign country, when the Private Citizen has no intention of using it anywhere else except in America? This is because the judicial authority, the

legislative authority, and the "legal" authority of the "United States", et al., all declarethat everything about the United States of America (America) is totally foreign.

According to the judicial authority of the "United States", et al., our Publicdocuments are foreign and unassailable. According to the legislative authority of the "United States", et al., our System of Law is foreign and unassailable. And,according to the "legal", multi-national organization of the "United States", et al.,even our geographical location is foreign, Inserted in your packet is a "Foreign: References"sheet revealing what the "United States", et al., says on these subjects, which will clearly show


2/17

that everything about our Country, the United States of America, is totally and completelyforeign to them. It is a principle of all Systems of Law that a Foreign "Country" cannotsubject any Citizen of another Country to its Law.

The foregoing makes it factual to say that if the above is foreign to the "United States", etat., then our domestically and internationally recognized Form of Government, sense of

Justice, Good Faith, Fair Play, sense of Morality, Christian Beliefs, our duality of Citizenship,our True Identities, etc. are also foreign and just as unassailable. We truly believe thatall these things are guaranteed to all Private Citizens of our Country and becomeupset, angry, and frustrated when others or ourselves are denied these basic,guaranteed, lawful, and unassailable considerations (Rights). These will be more fullydiscussed later in this paper.

How can the "United States", et at., recognize that everything lawful about us isforeign, and then proceed against us in an adversarial and wholly repugnant manner?In our Law this is a matter of treason. This unlawful attack is the result of a secret,unlegislated, economic "war" that is being conducted against all of us. Its recognitionand effect are solely based upon our own perceptions. There has never been anyorganic, legitimate or lawful act that justifies these actions, and this remains the facttoday. This "Program" (Alien Enemy) is wholly unlawful and repugnant whenconducted by anyone, and traitorous when executed by those masquerading as our "Public Servants".

Our Founding Fathers created a Form of Government that had never been seen before.Simply stated, those who had always been perceived as "subjects" of Government,suddenly became its "Rulers" (Absolute Sovereign Citizens), and those who had alwaysbeen perceived as "rulers" became "Subjects" (Public Servants). In other words, our Founding Fathers just turned traditional governance on its head, and all those who wereat the bottom became the top, and vice versa. This dramatic inversion resulted in themost powerful, productive, creative and Christian nation the world has ever known.However, throughout the 20 th century, our Public Servants have succeeded inprogressively and deftly re-inverting the pyramid of power, re-installing themselves as"Masters" and returning the people to the status of "Subjects/Slaves". This reversal wasaccomplished through governmental sleight-of-hand, in full view of the people, whoseem to have not noticed that the king is no longer wearing any clothes. And the AlienEnemy program, once understood, can be seen as the high-water mark in the betrayalof the people by their own "Servants" in Government.

In facing this "commercial"/"financial"/"economic" attack from our self-declared "enemies", amethod/procedure had to be found to destroy the ability of our enemies to conducttheir "war'. And a part of this "counterattack" rests upon our ability to authenticate adocument in such a way that it achieves a superior recognition by all parties to this"economic war". Our greatest weapon in this war is our factual statement of just who wereally are, our lawful and reasonable expectations as to our treatment by our guaranteedForm of Government, our religious beliefs, our true identity, those methods used to givean appearance (color of) of deniability, and finally, an assessment of penalties for anyone or anything that would even attempt to deny the lawful and ultimate facts of your "Statement" (Act of State).

It is through false identities that our "enemies" attack us, for they have no other weapon. They certainly have no System of Law that they can rely upon to justify their acts and opinions. By fabricating false identities and threatening violence to bully us intobelieving that we, in fact, created such false identities is a primary strategy (ROE) of our


3/17

self declared "economic" enemies. Their tactic is known as Trademark and Common-Law, Copyright "Counterfeiting" and "Identity Theft", and when done by someoneclaiming to be a lawful Public Servant, but who isn't one, such acts qualify as thepolitical crimes of "Treason", "Sedition", "Diplomatic Assault", "Commercial IdentityGenocide", "War Crimes", Neglect of Office, False Personation, Mail Fraud, etc. Suchinternationally criminal acts normally carry very heavy penalties financially, as well as to

ones freedom, and even to one's own life.Since "Trademark Infringement" is defined as anything that is "likely to cause confusion"(concerning one's identity), we have created a procedure that not only identifies you in anunassailable manner, but also contains a long list of examples that will show the"ingenious subterfuges and devices" employed to surreptitiously ensnare you intoaccepting accountability for that which has no lawful foundation whatsoever.

The authentication method that we employ is of such superior authority that our self-proclaimed economic enemies are left confounded and fearful of our newfound authorityand power. This authentication process does not in any way mean that there will be animmediate "peace" declared between you and these self-proclaimed economicenemies, but this method does clearly show that there can be found no legitimate claim,

process, procedure, etc. by our economic enemies to dissuade any authority fromperforming their lawfully required duties and actions.

As a matter of fact, since we are foreign to these economic enemies, and since theyhave recognized the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations , we are now in theprocess of lawfully extending this authentication by presenting your diplomaticcredentials to a foreign Country ("United States", et al.), which will then secure your absolute civil, criminal, commercial, diplomatic immunity in the "United States", et al.There is evidence that this "grass-roots" movement is becoming entrenched and quicklygaining momentum.

All the "Rules" of our economic enemies state that a copy of your Apostille andReaffirmation , is all that is required to give notice to any of their records. One of our economic enemies' tricks is to falsely declare that they are entitled to the "Original", andthat they will not obey the Law unless they have the "Original ". This is a blatant lie in thefirst place, but even in such a situation we can try to peacefully and harmoniouslycomply. All that you need to do is to tell the one insisting upon stealing your "Original'International Document that it is stated in the Document itself that any misuse of thisidentification document carries with it a ten (10) million dollar (in gold and silver coin)penalty, and-that you will be more than willing to "give" them the "original", if they comeup with the coin.

If they still refuse, then according to our document handling procedures, merelydelivering our documents to a "competent" authority is all that is required for us to beassured that our documents will be lawfully and properly recorded (See Marbury vs.Madison, 5 U.S. 137). Then, if the alleged "Public Servant" fails to perform their ministerial duty, you can be assured that you have discovered someone who hascommitted Neglect of Office and is merely impersonating a lawful Public Servant, and isone of our economic enemies.

The above procedure also applies to those "Courts" that demand that you present your "original". Always remember that this "Court's" own "Rules" state that even a copy willbe superior to any authentication procedure that they can come up with, and that thisdocument in particular cannot be questioned by them or their fictitious "Court". They


4/17

must, by International Law, officially recognize it. Do not give it up!! You have paid for this internationally authenticated and registered document, and it is solely authenticatedand registered to you and is, therefore, your absolute property. If there is still aninsistence, then you can offer it to them for the "purchase price", as above. Remember that our lawful monetary system is "blocked" (non-convertible) to our economic enemiescurrency, and that you will require the lawful, domestic, constitutional and stipulated

payment under the International Law. Since they may not and cannot comply, your original should remain secure in your possession as your property.

In the rear pocket of your packet is to be found both the Treaty that describes thisauthentication procedure for the Apostille, and the "Accession" of Congress (of theUnited States of America), our lawful Treaty-making authority. In these two documentsyou will see that this authentication method is the best method that we as PrivateCitizens can come up with to establish our identities. This method cuts across all

jurisdictional lines, national boundaries, and even exposes false representations,conveniently and non-confrontationally. This ensures that our "Official Public RecordDocuments of the United States of America" will be recognized no matter to whom our documents are presented.

Also, in this rear pocket you will find a copy of the Geneva Convention on Dip lomaticRelations that we are now learning how to use properly in expediting the recognitionand honoring of our claim of absolute civil, criminal, and commercial immunity.

This document was found in the front pocket of your packet, along with the "ForeignReferences" sheet that we have already referenced. This document is intended toanswer some common questions that rel at e to the application of your Apostille and your Reaffirmation. It does not take the place of further study and review of the basic andfundamental principles of Government and Law. It is your responsibility to performsufficient "Due Diligence" to meet your specific needs.

There are two (2) sheet protectors in the package. The first contains the Apostille

(labeled "Original") that was issued by the Secretary of State. Along with its"Reaffirmation...", you should safeguard these documents. There has actually been acase of the "STATE" breaking into someone's home just to steal these documents. Thenext sheet protector contains an original, District Court (Diplomatic Court)-stampedcopy (labeled "Copy Original") of your "Original" . Apostille and Reaffirmation. This, too,should be diligently safeguarded. We recommend that you make many copies of thesedocuments, especially the Court Received one , so that a copy is available for presentation to inexperienced or ignorant, personating Public Servants.

We are in the process of creating a better procedure for both the apostilling of documents and for the recognition of the absolute immunities they create. Thispreliminary document has been created to provide an overview of the Apostille and itsuse, while we continue to refine its many applications, which will be published in

subsequent updates or editions. The balance of this document is intended to give youthe basic knowledge that you will need to not only use the Apostille, but to know justwhat your true identity is, and some of the ways the "United States", et al., tries to stealit.

The ApostIlle Form:

The history of this procedure is in the International Law. Prior to 1961, marriagelicense, death certificates, divorce decrees, birth certificates, etc. issued by one


5/17

country were often not recognized by other countries. One can remember when therich and famous would run to Mexico to get a divorce because Congress had made aTreaty with Mexico to recognize their divorce decree documents, Well this non-recognition by some countries of the Public Documents of another had started tobecome a problem. For instance, dead bodies were stacking up at the borders of some countries, while the country expecting to receive the remains would have to

complete a complicated procedure (chain authentication) before that country couldaccept the dead body for burial.

The problem probably originates in a long-standing, high level of mistrust between allthe governments of the world. They don't trust each other's Public Documents, perhapsbecause each realized that their own Public Documents were often suspect.

So an International Convention was held in the Hague to remedy this situation. it wasat this Convention in 1961 that a new and simple method of internationallyauthenticating and registering a country's Public Documents was created, and thisauthenticating document was called an Apostille. This was agreeable to many of thecountries of the world at this time, but our country, the United States of America, did notagree to this method in 1961.

We have mentioned Mexican divorces, and because we would not agree to thisauthentication and registration procedure, we were suffering from the fact that our country's Public Documents were not being recognized in other countries of the world.So in 1981, Congress agreed (by accession) to comply with the internationalprocedures established by the 1961 Convention to not only make our country's PublicDocuments authentic in other countries, but to make their Public Documents authenticin ours.

It was from this 1961 Convention that the proper procedure for authenticating a PublicDocument from the United States of America was formally established. Congress, as our Treaty making authority (as long as it is compliant to the Constitution), agreed to comply

with the International Law, and established the domestic procedures that would beimplemented in order to make Public Documents of the United States of Americainternationally authenticated and registered.

The domestic procedure established was that the authority that domesticallyauthenticates documents (in our case, this is . usually the Notary Public), would becertified by each State of the Union and certain Territories. In 47 out of the 50 States, itis the Secretary of State that certifies the one who domestically authenticates a PublicDocument of the United States of America. In the other 3, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah, it isthe Lieutenant Governor.

So when the certifying officer receives a document that is to be internationallyauthenticated, that certifying officer is only authorized to certify the qualifications and

signature of the one attesting to the authenticity of the Private Citizen's signature. But itmust be understood that the State is certifying its own member's signature, usually aNotary Public.

A notary Public must have an Oath, Bond, and their signature on file with the Secretaryof State. When this office proves that to itself, then it is easily seen that the State hasno other choice than to issue an Apostille, in its internationally demanded form. For thisinternational service, States charge a fee that ranges roughly from $5 to $50. A part of our service is the apostilling of original "Reaffirmations...", along with the subsequent entry


6/17

of (copies of) the documents into evidence in the Records of the District Court.

The Rules and Procedures concerning an Apostille:International Rules and Procedures:

I have attached a current copy of the International Treaty and the accession of theCongress of the United States of America, our Country's constitutional Treaty-makingauthority. The Treaty comes from the United States of America Treaties andinternational Agreement (UST) book and the Congressional Accession wasdownloaded from the Internet, even though the Treaty has not changed since 1961and our accession has not changed since 1981. It is in the heading of this Treaty thatwe find the problem that this Treaty remedied, namely the practice of "chainauthentication". Chain authentication is where every signature, seal, and stamp must

be authenticated in chronological order, and its final step was the requiredauthentication by either a diplomatic or consular authority. This became a real pain,and that is the reason dead bodies started stacking up at borders, because everyonein the line had to have either their signature, seal, and/or stamp authenticated by thenext authority in line. So if paramedics were involved, next would be a doctor, then ahospital, then a medical examiner, then a coroner, then the Border Patrol, then alicensed ambulance service, etc., before the body could cross national boundaries.It's easy to see how cumbersome the old method of authentication was.

The only exemption by our Country involves extraditing someone out of our Country intoa foreign country. But as far as we are concerned, this opened up internationalauthentication and registration to us, as Private Citizens. I intended to take fulladvantage of this when I engineered and designed this procedure. What follows isthe first part of this Treaty that underscores this chain authentication problem, and

just what documents will be covered by this new authentication process.

Convention Abolishing the Requirement of LegalisationFor Foreign Public Documents

"The States (Countries) signatory to the present Convention.desiring to abolish the requirement of diplomatic or consular

legalisation (chain authentication) for foreign public documents,have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect

and have agreed upon the following provisions:

"Article 1 "

"The present Convention shall apply to public documents which have beenexecuted

in the territory of one contracting State and which have to be produced in theterritory of another contracting State.

"For the purposes of the present Convention,the following are deemed to be public documents:


7/17

"(a) documents emanating from an authority or an official connectedwith the courts or tribunals of the State,

Including those emanating from a public prosecutor,a clerk of a court or a process-server;

(b) Administrative documents;

(c) Notarial acts;

(d) Official certificates which are placed on documents signedby persons in their private capacity,

such as official certificates recording theregistration of a document or fact

that it was in existence on a certain dateand official and notarial authentications of signatures."

Convention de La Haye du 5 octobre 1961"Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public

Documents"

T1AS 10072; 33 UNITED STATES , et al, 883; 527 UNTS 189; Convention #12

The next part of this Treaty of concern to us is the proper procedure that is demanded inorder for a public document to be internationally authenticated.

"Article 3"

"The only formality that may be required in order to certify the authenticity of the signature,the

capacity in which the person signing the document has acted and, where appropriate, theidentity of the seal or stamp which it bears, is the addition of the certificate described in Article 4,

issued by thecompetent authority of the State (Country) from which the document emanates.

"However, the formality mentioned in the preceding paragraph cannot be required wheneither the

laws, regulations, or practice in force in the State where the document is produced or anagreement

between two or more Contracting States have abolished or simplified it, or exempt thedocument itself

from legalisation."

"Article 4"

"The certificate referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 shall be placed on thedocument itself or

on an "alloge"; it shall be in the form of the model annexed to the present Convention.

"It may, however, be drawn up in the official language of the authority which issues it.

"The standard terms appearing therein may be in a second language also."


8/17

"The title "Apostille (Convention de La Haye du 5 octobre 1961)" shall be in the French

language."

"Article 5"

"The certificate shall be issued at the request of the personwho has signed the document or of any bearer.

"When properly filled in,it will certify the authenticity of the signature,

the capacity in which the person signing the document has acted and,where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which the document bears.

"The signature, seal and stamp on the certificate are exempt from all certification."

"Article 6"

"Each Contracting State shall designate by reference to their official function,the authorities who are competent to issue the certificate

referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3.

"it shall give notice of such designation to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands

at the time it deposits its instrument of ratificationor of accession or its declaration of extension.

"It shall also give notice of any change in the designated authorities"

"Article 7"

"Each of the authorities designated in accordance with Article 6shall keep a register or card index in which it shall

record the certificates issued, specifying:

"(a) the number and date of the certificate.

'(b) the name of the person signing the public documentand the capacity in which he has acted,or in the case of unsigned documents,

the name of the authority which has affixed the seal or stamp.

"At the request of any interested person,the authority which has issued the certificate

shall verify whether the particulars in the certificate correspondwith those in the register or card index."

In the above, Articles 3, 4, and 5 all describe the Apostille form, what must be includedand what it must say. Article 6, on the other hand, is evidence of either an "instrumentof ratification", an "accession", or a "declaration of extension. I have provided a copyof both the Treaty and Congress' Accession. I do not have copies of any declarations of extension (which are required every 5 years), so there should be 4 of these made byour Country, since we have acceded to this Treaty for a li ttle over 22 years,


9/17

This pretty much should end any confusion as to the nature and purpose of the Apostillefrom an international point of view, but we must now focus upon how our Country(United States of America) has responded and expressed the force and effect of thisinternational procedure. The attached "Accession" states the intent of our Country, butdoes not really address how this is applied here in the United States of America.

Almost every Court and Public Servant strictly obey the "Federal Rules". Even thoughPublic Servants are supposed to have given bonded, constitutionally prescribedOaths/Affirmations of Office to be faithful to our Constitutions, it will not come as arevelation to anyone that this is often not how it works. All of the "Federal Government"and, by "uniform adoption"; all the alleged State Governments abide by these "FederalRules".

Congress, by statute (See Title 28 U.S.C. 331), and not proposed constitutionalAmendment, has created an agency that unconstitutionally (See Comm. Of IRS vs. Acker, 361 U.S. 87) writes laws/rules for all pretending Public Servants. It is known asthe "Judicial Conference of the United States" and is composed entirely of presidentialappointees who appoint themselves. Specifically, the Chairman of the Conference isthe Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and all of its members are typically Chief Judges of the Federal Circuit and District Courts. Their organic purpose was to offer "recommendations and suggestions" to Courts so that they could more efficientlyconduct "business". It was not until the 1980's that that "business" was even defined

judicially, but this was enough time for this "Conference" to perform its constitutionalabrogations and to fully entrench these unlawful "recommendations and suggestions,not only in the "Federal Courts", but by uniform adoption, in every State "Court", as well.It is these "Rules" that we are going to study as it relates to this International Treatythat Congress has acceded.

Federal/STATE Rules of Evidence:

Rule 902. Self-authentication;(Title 28 U.S.C. Appendix)

(3) Foreign public documents.

"A document purporting to be executed or attested (notarized)in an official capacity of a person (Notary) authorized

by the laws of the foreign country tomake the execution or attestation (notarization),

and accompanied by a final certification (see Apostille form)as to the genuineness of the signature and official position

of the executing or attesting Person (notary)..."

Obviously, their "Rules of Evidence" clearly describe an Apostille, and that any documentauthenticated this way is a "self-authenticated foreign public document".

Federal/STATE Rules of Criminal Procedure:Rule 27. Proof of Official Record;


10/17

(Title 18 U.S.C. Appendix)

"An official record or an entry therein or the lack of such a record or entry

may be proved in the same manner as in civil actions."

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules (1944):"This rule incorporates by reference Rule 44

of the Federal (STATE) Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., Appendix,which provided a simple and uniform method of

proving public records and entry or lack of entry therein...."

This next "Rule", being "Criminal Procedure" surrenders its definition to the "Rules of CivilProcedure". But, once again, it says that a document following the procedure laid down by"Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" is "proof of official record".

Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure:Rule 44.

Proof of OfficialRecor d;(Title28U.S.C.Appendix)

(a) Authentication;

(2) Foreign;

"A foreign official record, or an entry therein,when admissible for any purpose,

may be evidenced by an official publication thereof, or a copy thereof,attested (notarized) by a person (Notary) authorized

to make the attestation (notarization),and accompanied by a final certification (see Apostille form)as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (Notary)

of the attesting person (Notary), ..."

This "Rule" has the most complete and accurate definition, as it describes exactly what is tobe authenticated upon an Apostille. Again, when a document is authenticated in such away as is described, then it is authenticated as an "authentication of a proof of a foreign,official record". This rule in its amending notes (annotations) even takes this type of document another step.

Advisory Committee Notes (1991):


11/17

"... This method provides a reliable method for maintain ingthe integrity of the authentication process,

and the apostille can be accorded greater weightthan the normal authentication procedure

(sworn, unsworn, witnessed, or notarized documents), ..."

The United States and the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents,

11 HARV. INT'L.LJ. 476, 482, 488 (1970).

The "Note" shows that a document that is authenticated in such a manner hasachieved superior authentication. It is even superior to any document that isauthenticated "normally". But what is confusing is that a Public Document of theUnited States of America is considered foreign to the Judicial Conference of theUnited States, which is all the Chief Justices and Judges of the Federal Courts, aswell as all STATE "Cour ts". Or is it so confusing? A Public Document that emanatesfrom .the United States of America, like the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date), is a superior, foreign, official document, whereas theGovernment's authenticated documents are inferior to our internationally recognizedCountry.

This, for all intents and purposes, positively shows that the Government in its presentform has intentionally and voluntarily "expatriated" itself from the Venue, Laws, andForm of our guaranteed, organic and lawful republican form of Government. We willlook at expatriation in the Form 3 section of this study.

Form 2:The Primary Signature . Certification Form:

Since the Government has literally expatriated itself not only from us, but from theboundaries of our Country, I felt . that It was imperative to find some form and/or

procedure that could be used by the average Private, Sentient, Civilian, AbsoluteSovereign Citizen of the United States of America and The State of (Your State) toestablish an undeniable right to be administratively heard. Form 3 is the method that Ichose to employ to accomplish this.

In that light, Form 3 is not only an Affidavit and a Court in Session, but also,

literally, an Act of State.

"Act of state."

"An act done by the sovereign power of a country,Or by its delegate (fully qualified Public Servant/Officer),

Within the limits of the power invested in him.

"An act of state cannot be questioned or made the subjectof legal proceedings in a court of law."

Banco Nacional de Cuba vs. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398:Ricaud vs. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304:Oetien vs. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297:


12/17

F. Palicio v Compania. S. A. vs. Brush, 256 F. Supp.481; 375 F.2d 1011; 389 U.S. 830:

Black's Law Dlctionary, 6 th ed. pgs. 33-34.

Since the present Government has demonstrated that it has expatriated itself from allresponsibilities of being my Government, it becomes quite obvious that this present

Government, what they have to say, adjudicate, legislate, or enforce is of absolutely noconcern of mine. Since I/we are the absolute sovereigns of our Government, Idetermined that I would have to come up with a method of administrative redress(correction) that would not only be mandatory and binding upon those presently claimingto be our Government, but to do it in such a way that would elevate a "request/asking" to a"demand/mandatory". This form of international authentication is a good tool toaccomplish this.

We will be making statements in our document that will be witnessed divinely and inaccordance with the supreme Law (Common-Law). There is no need to have thesestatements subject to any further authentication procedures. Hence, the boundary thatsurrounds it also protects it from any intrusions by foreigners, But this is not the case for this present Government. Do you think that if you took Form 3 to a present keeper of Public Records that they would willingly and voluntarily record it? So Form 2 is mymethod of compelling that same record keeper to do just exactly what is required in myGovernment. And since it involves a "STATE Officer", it too is contained within aboundary that cannot be extended or pierced.

Form 2 exactly complies with the international Treaty and the Accession made by myCountry and Government, the United States of America, The Apostille is issued uponForm 2. And because it is attached to Form 3, the whole document is theninternationally authenticated and registered

Form 3Reaffirmation of Dual Citizenship and

Renunciation of Attempted Expatriation,This is the Form that we will use to make our statements/declarations, and theInternational Law will authenticate and register these statements. In our guaranteedform of Government, the rights, benefits, privileges, and immunities of Citizenship areunassailable. The expatriated members of this expressed foreign Government wouldhave you believe otherwise. But the fact remains that their expatriated Law itself knowsthat it has no force and effect over a Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute SovereignCitizen of the United States of America and The State of Arkansas, and that anystatements made by said Private Citizen cannot be questioned, and cannot be made asa legal proceeding in any of their Courts. The reason is simple. Legal is not our Law, butlawful is. Secondly, they have no lawful Courts or even Court members. We recognizeonly fully qualified Public Servants. We do not pay for self-appointed, self-

authenticating, and unconstitutional tyrants.. The Venue of every "Federal" and "STATE"Court is on the battlefront upon the high seas. Pursuant to the Law of the Flag(International Common-Law/Admiralty) every one of these "Courts" give Tacit (silent)Public Notice to this fact.

Even more despotic is the fact that you cannot find one member of these organizationswho possesses a bonded, constitutionally prescribed Oath/Affirmation of Office, and the"Judges" even have to have the further qualifications of lifetime good behavior tenureand full compensations. Not one of these alleged "Public Servants" are capable of


13/17

producing these prerequisite qualifications. in the case of Public Servants, this is called"Neglect of Office" and means that upon the date of assuming office, they suffered acivil death. This also means that any duties that they have perforated from that date arenull, void, moot, and were never really done because they were never qual ified. In thecase of a "Judge", they are not only civilly dead, but are practicing Law from the bench ,a felonious (high) crime.

These are the facts that I faced when trying to design a method for a Private Citizen toeffectively, forcibly, lawfully, and legitimately make an immutable statement which wouldbe recognized by all these lawbreakers and expatriated, former Private Citizens. Firstwe have to find points of agreement, and then use these points to mandate our purposes. The first thing we know is that any actions of these expatriated, ex-PrivateCitizens do not have any effect over a real, Private Citizen. To believe otherwise is likesaying that the Communist Party and its Communist Manifesto are our law just becausethey have set up pretend "Courts" and pretend "Public Servants", which in manypeople's opinion is what has happened, I myself believe that we are dealing with greed,plain and simple.

They agree that they have no legitimacy, jurisdiction nor authority over a Private,Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the United States of America and TheState of (Your State), and must resort, at all times and in every instance to Threat,Duress, and Coercion, usually under, at least, the threat of the use of force and arms.Admiralty demands "capture", "false imprisonment" and "ransoming", which fairlydescribes a typical police action of this pretending, expatriated Government and all itsmembers,

For a long time now I have had great difficulty in understanding how and why there arepeople who believe that this present "Government' would do nothing to harm them, andto go so far as to believe that this present "Government" is even on their side. I havefinally come to the conclusion that there are three possibilities on why people think thisway. 1) Because they are either afraid of, or frustrated in "fighting city hall", 2) They arenot hearing what this expatriated, impersonating "Government' is telling them and do notknow how to apply that knowledge. 3) They simply do not know who they really are andwhat they really own.

This Form 3 is designed to respond to all three of those misconceptions. I have endeavored to putupon one piece of paper all that a Christian, Private Citizen factually is, all the "ingenioussubterfuges and devices" that this expatriated, impersonating "Government uses to try to force aChristian, Private Citizen into its violently enslaved ranks, a Political/Administrative Default/DamageClause and to finally give these impersonators a Common-Law remedy (to rebut with equal or overwhelming positive evidence) to show that the Christian, Private Citizen is in error. That is Form3.

It is an Act of State, which means it cannot be questioned, unless there can be shown in both theDivine and supreme Law (Common-Law) that some fatal error exists. An Act of State also means

that none of their "legal" maneuverings are tolerated and eliminates all their "Courts", "Judges","Prosecutors", etc. from making frivolous and unsubstantiated claims. As a matter of fact, thealleged law of this State, actually STATE, declares that a copy of a document having an Apostilleattached shall be received in any "Court" in this STATE as the original for purposes of evidence. Ihave even gotten the Federal District Court to admit that it is truly a "Court" of this STATE, and itreceives these documents into their records as evidence, and even wants a copy for insertion intotheir records.

A look at expatriation is probably necessary before we conclude this paper. I will be


14/17

using two U.S. Supreme Court cases. They are Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) andVance vs. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252. At this time, I have copies taken from the Findlaw Internet sitethat is only 70% accurate. This means that it does not give you much background to the case,but mainly deals with the "Opinion of the Court" and its references. But it is enough toserve our purposes here.

In these cases, Vance and Rusk were the Secretaries of State of the United States. Ruskwas the "defendant" and Vance was the "plaintiff. The oldest case, Afroyim, dealt with anaturalized Polish American Citizen (1928) who had gone to Israel (1950-1951) and voted in theorganic, Israeli, legislative election, and when he reapplied for an American passport, the StateDepartment denied him one based upon the opinion that because he had participated in a foreignelection, he had basically expatriated himself from our Country, the United States of America, byimplication.

Now Rusk used a case that seemed to make his point:

"The District Court and the Court of Appeals ...held that Congress has constitutional authority forcibly ;to take away citizenship for voting in a foreign country

based upon the implied power to regulate foreign affairs.

"Consequently, petitioner (Afroyim) was heldto have lost his American citizenship

regardless of his intention not to give it up.

"This is precisely what this Court held in Perez vs. Brownwell, 356 U.S. 44."

361 F.2d 102;Perez vs. Brownwell, 356 U.S. 44; Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 255.

Sure sounds bad for the home team. But we need not worry because truth and fact always willprevail, if you only keep searching:

"First we reject the idea expressed in Perez that,aside from the Fourteenth Amendment,

Congress has any general power, expressed or implied,to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent.

"This power cannot, as Perez

indicated, besustained as an

implied attribute of sovereignty

possessed byall nations.

Other nations are governed by their constitutions, if any,and we can draw no support from theirs.

"In our country the people are sovereign and


15/17

the Government cannot sever its relationshipto the people by taking away their citizenship.

"Our Constitution governs us andwe must never forget that our Constitution limits Government

to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper

to carry out the specifically granted ones.

"The Constitution, of course, grants Congressno express power to strip people of their citizenship,

whether in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairsor in the exercise of any specifically granted power.

"And even before the adoption (not ratification) of the Fourteenth Amendment,view s w ere expr esse d i n C ongr ess and by this Court

that under the Constitution the Government was granted no power,even under its express power to pass a uniform rule of naturalization,to determine what conduct should and should not result in the loss of

citizenship."

Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 257.

Not only did the Supreme Court "reject" its own previous "idea" but at the end of this case theSupreme Court even went so far as to "overrule" this Perez case. Is there any possibility thatan authority that declares that the Public Documents of our Country are not only foreign, butsuperior and official can then claim to have any power or authority over any Private Citizen of that foreign Country? This case declares that this is not the case and the following, from thissame case, will show that it was never the case in our entire history.

"On three occasions, in1 7 9 4 , 1 797, and 1818,Congress consideredand rejected proposalsto enact laws (statutes)which would describecertain conduct asresulting inexpatriation.

"On each occasion Congress was considering billsthat were concerned with recognizing the right of voluntary expatriation

and with providing some means of exercising that right.

"In 1794 and 1797, many members of Congress still adheredto the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance and

doubted whether a citizen could evenvoluntarily renounce his citizenship.

"By 1818, however, almost no one doubtedthe existence of the right of voluntary expatriation,

but several judicial decisions had indicated


16/17

that the right could not be exercised by the citizenwithout the consent of the Federal Government

in the form of enabling legislation.

"Therefore, a bill was introduced toprovide that a person could voluntarily relinquish his citizenship

by declaring such relinquishment in writingbefore a district court (Judiciary Act of 1789)

and then departing from the country.

"The opponents of the bill argue that Congress hadno constitutional authority, either expressed or implied,

under either the Naturalization Clauseor the Necessary and Proper Clause,

to provide that a certain act would constitute expatriation."

Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 257-258.

This addition of the alleged Fourteenth Amendment has caused a great deal of confusion and debate over the ensuing years. About the only thing that could beresolved was that the class of Citizen that was created by the adopted ( but not ratified ) Fourteenth Amendment was "the desire to protect Negroes (Blacks)". TheseCourts have many times declared that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies toBlack Americans, and that the protection of this citizenship is not a congressionalauthority, but a constitutional one. This brings us right back to the original question,and that is: Where does the right of expatriation lie?

What is known as the Act of 1868, which is the scheme (device) that Congress used toconceal that the Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully and constitutionally ratified,but merely adopted upon the threat of non-representation and coercion of Congressagainst the reformed Union of States. It was this Act that "recognized the `right of expatriation' as an inherent right of all people" (Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 266.).The final outcome of this case was that Congress or any other branch, department, or agency of Government cannot strip any Private Citizen of their citizenship (expatriate),and that right is strictly limited to the Private Citizen's intentional expatriation, withoutgovernmental influence or authority.

In order to save a little time, in Vance vs. Terrazes, 444 U.S. 252, we find that not onlymust it be proven that the act of a Private Citizen expatriating themselves from theUnited States of America must be totally voluntary, but such an act must also bewithout any evidence of fraud, threat, duress, coercion, force, and/or arms.

In other words, the Government, constitutional or otherwise, cannot devise a schemethat can expatriate any Private Citizen, Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise. TheRight of Expatriation is strictly limited to the unencumbered, intentional, and totallyvoluntary act of the Private Citizen. The Private Citizen, with the Private Citizen's ful lknowledge, and following the Private Citizen's own conscience and form, mustinitiate it.

The Form 3 we have been examining declares all this. First, that there has been noPrivate Citizen-inspired, intentional, free will, and voluntary expatriation from theUnited States of America and all its protections, defenses, benefits, rights, privileges,immunities and unassailable, guaranteed rights. The second part of Form 3 showsmany of the ingenious subterfuges and devices employed by the present pretending


17/17

"government" to fraudulently and fictitiously give the appearance of a Private Citizenhaving been expatriated from the United States of America. This is most commonlydone by the administrative/civil/criminal crimes of identity Theft, False Personation,Registered international Trademark Infringement, Mail Fraud, etc. Also, a customaryand reasonable time is given so that anyone wanting to contravene any declaration inForm 3 can conduct a meaningful hearing to prove an error. And, finally, there is a

Damage Clause that provides a lump sum penalty for any and all future fraudulent andfictitious uses of the internationally registered trademark that is declared in Form 3.

What is important. is that Form 3 is apostilled upon the procedurally proper use of Form 2, as it is Form 2 that contains the Primary Signature which the State certifies,namely that of the Notary Public. This, in my opinion, is not only the most important stepthat a Freedom-seeking Private Citizen must take, but is the very first step. You must letthe impersonators know who you really are and that will show them the utter uselessness of not only their Office, but any acts of imposition upon the lawful,constitutional, and guaranteed rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness that youmay invoke at any time and for any reason. Think deeply about it