Image via Wikipedia
In A.D. 1795, our government ratified a treaty with the nation of Algiers. One of the two signatories to to that treaty was Algiers; the other was “the United States of North America”. The phrase “the United States of North America” appears roughly 20 times in that treaty.
Thus, it appears that in A.D. 1795—seven years after ratification of the Constitution of the United States—either:
1) at least with respect to international treaties, the proper name for our national government may have been “the United States of North America”;
2) no one, including George Washington, had yet agreed on a proper name for this country; or,
3) “the United States of North America” has subsequently been supplanted by the “United States”.
You can read a complete copy of the treaty as posted in the Public Treaties of the United States , in force on The First Day of December, 1873” at: page 1, TREATY OF PEACE AND AMITY BETWEEN THE DEY OF ALGIERS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Thus, the signatories knew that the proper name for our nation was “The United States of America”—but the treaty nevertheless refers repeatedly to “the United States of North America”.
Could it be that the reference to “the United States of North America” reflected growing awareness that the term “United States” as created in our Constitution was ambiguous in that it might refer to the several States of the Union or it might refer to the national government?
It seems undeniable that the phrase “the United States of North America” was intended to signify something other than “The United States of America” (the proper name for this nation/Union/Confederation as declared in the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781). Was the reference to “the United States of North America” intended to signify the national government acting in an international capacity rather than acting in a “federal” capacity among the States of the Union . . . ?
Is the term “the United States of North America” the proper name for a government or country, or is it merely some sort of description?
I have no answer for those questions. I don’t know if this information is important or merely a curiosity.
Perhaps one of you will unravel this mystery.
Here’s part of the text of the original Treaty:
ALGIERS, 1795.
TREATY OF PEACE AND AMITY BETWEEN THE DEY OF ALGIERS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONCLUDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1795; RATIFICATION ADVISED BY SENATE MARCH 2, 1796.
A Treaty of peace and Amity, concluded this present day 1—Ima Artasi, the twenty-first of the Luna Safer, year of the Hegira 1210, corresponding with Saturday, the fifth of September one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, between Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, his Divan and Subjects and George Washington, President of the United States of North America, and the Citizens of the said United States. [Emphasis added.]
ARTICLE I.
From the date of the present treaty there shall subsist a firm and sincere peace and amity between the President and citizens of the United States of North America and Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, his Divan and subjects; the vessels and subjects of both nations reciprocally treating each other with civility, honor, and respect.
ARTICLE II.
All vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States of North America shall be permitted to enter the different ports of the Regency, to trade with our subjects, or any other persons residing within our jurisdiction, on paying the usual duties are customhouse is paid by all nations at peace with this Regency; . . . .
P.S. A day or two after I posted the previous text, one of my readers sent the following links dealing with “the United States of North America”. The implication is that “the United States of North America” may be an obscure issue, but has been recognized for some time:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/United_States_of_North_America
Michael
August 23, 2011 at 6:42 AM
Where did the notion come from that we have a “national government”? There is a guarantee that every state have a republican form of government, Art 4 Sec 4 of the Constitution, but where is it stated that we have, or ever had, a national government? The federal government is not national and never has been national except in some people’s minds. The federal government is limited by the Constitution to ten square miles and it’s territories and possessions. Yes The United States of America is a nation of several nation states, but a nation is referring to the people, not a government. A nation is separate from government.
Adask
August 23, 2011 at 10:15 AM
I’ve seen some Supreme Court cases that referred to the “national” government, and others that referred to the “federal” government. While it’s possible that the terms are synonyms, it seems most likely that they carry distinctly different meanings.
I suspect that whenever the general government of the United States acts in a way that involves the States of the Union, that government is acting in its “federal” capacity (as “supervisor” or “moderator” of the relationships between the States of the Union created by the Articles of ConFEDERAtion). If so, it might follow that whenever the general government of the United States acts in a way that involves foreign countries and/or international law, that government may be acting in its “national” capacity.
Same government in both instance, but acting in different capacities?
And, in what capacity does the government act when dealing with its TERRITORIES? If the previous speculation is roughly correct, the general government cannot be acting in its “federal” capacity since it’s not dealing with any of the States of the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, the general government would presumably be acting in its “national” capacity to deal with territories–unless there is some third, as yet unrecognized capacity reserved for dealing with territories.
All this is pure speculation. I stand to be corrected and would welcome any info which provided that correction.
Torg No Person
August 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Here is your answer to the difference between a National (Consolidated) Government and a Federal Government as was established by the Articles of Confederation which established the United States of America as a perpetual union. Comments by Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788.
Patrick Henry appears to have been beside himself that anyone had the audacity to completely change the nature of the document which created the federal union of states into a Consolidated government which would and has transformed America into a corporate democracy controlled by pawns and dictators (Creditors). Fortunately the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God will bring an end to the fiasco and hopefully a better union will arise.
8
Federal v. Consolidated Government
CHAPTER 8 | Document 38
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention
4–12 June 1788 Storing 5.16.1–2, 22–23, 27
[4 June]
And here I would make this enquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,–but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States.
[5 June]
I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts: I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing–the expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England–a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland–an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this same relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans: It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and an half had adopted it, I would with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.
. . . . .
The distinction between a National Government and a Confederacy is not sufficiently discerned. Had the delegates who were sent to Philadelphia a power to propose a Consolidated Government instead of a Confederacy? Were they not deputed by States, and not by the people? The assent of the people in their collective capacity is not necessary to the formation of a Federal Government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations: They are not the proper agents for this purpose: States and sovereign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of Government: Shew me an instance where the people have exercised this business: Has it not always gone through the Legislatures? I refer you to the treaties with France, Holland, and other nations: How were they made? Were they not made by the States? Are the people therefore in their aggregate capacity, the proper persons to form a Confederacy? This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the Legislatures; the people having never sent delegates to make any proposition of changing the Government. Yet I must say, at the same time, that it was made on grounds the most pure, and perhaps I might have been brought to consent to it so far as to the change of Government; but there is one thing in it which I never would acquiesce in. I mean the changing it into a Consolidated Government; which is so abhorent to my mind. The Honorable Gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland; which, according to the system of my notes, he attributes to the present feeble Government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are a contemptible people: The time has been when we were thought otherwise: Under this same despised Government, we commanded the respect of all Europe: Wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: It has gone to regions, where it has never been expected: It has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid Government–a strong energetic Government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid Government. Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they suffered in attaining such a Government for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose Government was founded on liberty: Our glorious forefathers of Great-Britain, made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their Government is strong and energetic; but, Sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation: We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty: But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, Sir, we are not feared by foreigners: we do not make nations tremble: Would this, Sir, constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, Sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, Sir: Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of the society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances: Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? and yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences: I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower class of people: It is for them I fear the adoption of this system.
[9 June]
We are told that this Government collectively taken, is without an example–That it is national in this part, and federal in that part, &c. We may be amused if we please, by a treatise of political anatomy. In the brain it is national: The stamina are federal–some limbs are federal–others national. The Senators are voted for by the State Legislatures, so far it is federal.–Individuals choose the members of the first branch; here it is national. It is federal in conferring general powers; but national in retaining them. It is not to be supported by the States–The pockets of individuals are to be searched for its maintenance. What signifies it to me, that you have the most curious anatomical description of it in its creation? To all the common purposes of Legislation it is a great consolidation of Government. You are not to have a right to legislate in any but trivial cases: You are not to touch private contracts: You are not to have the right of having arms in your own defence: You cannot be trusted with dealing out justice between man and man. What shall the States have to do? Take care of the poor–repair and make highways–erect bridges, and so on, and so on. Abolish the State Legislatures at once. What purposes should they be continued for? Our Legislature will indeed be a ludicrous spectacle–180 men marching in solemn farcical procession, exhibiting a mournful proof of the lost liberty of their country–without the power of restoring it. But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
I beg Gentlemen to consider–lay aside your prejudices–Is this a Federal Government? Is it not a Consolidated Government for every purpose almost? Is the Government of Virginia a State Government after this Government is adopted? I grant that it is a Republican Government–but for what purposes? For such trivial domestic considerations, as render it unworthy the name of a Legislature.
[12 June]
The State Governments, says he, will possess greater advantages than the General Government, and will consequently prevail. His opinion and mine are diametrically opposite. Bring forth the Federal allurements, and compare them with the poor contemptible things that the State Legislatures can bring forth. On the part of the State Legislatures, there are Justices of Peace and militia officers–And even these Justices and officers, are bound by oath in favour of the Constitution. A constable is the only man who is not obliged to swear paramount allegiance to this beloved Congress. On the other hand, there are rich, fat Federal emoluments–your rich, snug, fine, fat Federal offices–The number of collectors of taxes and excises will outnumber any thing from the States. Who can cope with the excisemen and taxmen? There are none in this country, that can cope with this class of men alone. But, Sir, is this the only danger? Would to Heaven that it were. If we are to ask which will last the longest–the State or the General Government, you must take an army and a navy into the account. Lay these things together, and add to the enumeration the superior abilities of those who manage the General Government. Can then the State Governments look it in the face? You dare not look it in the face now, when it is but an embryo. The influence of this Government will be such, that you never can get amendments; for if you propose alterations, you will affront them. Let the Honorable Gentleman consider all these things and say, whether the State Governments will last as long as the Federal Government.
Torg No Person
Torg No Person
August 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Here is another tid-bit from a feller . . . Byron Beers . . . he has done exellent research in this area of corporate government. (Torg No Person)
HOW TO IMPLEMENT A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE SYSTEM
In the Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, section 3, Clause 1, authority is delegated to congress to admit new states into the union. If you look at the public records for the various states when a new state was admitted, you will see the phrase “admitted and incorporated”. Could there be two different types of states being addressed in that phrase? Did congress admit two different states in one action? There could be one state according to the original intent, and another one following the modern trend. The second State is a political society with a political superior exercising
the rights of sovereignty and at the same time acting as a subordinate political subdivision of the nation. All the corporate political units in the matrix could rightfully be called municipal corporations.
The following quote is in reference to territories, and the concept of incorporating a new state into the union. Justice Brown’s observationis as follows:
[Introduction to Corporate Political Societies page 32]
Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the
territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its
subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin
and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of
government bearing a greater analogy to a British Crown colony
than a republican state of America.
Mr. Justice Brown, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
England operates as a national political society, a body politic and corporate consisting of a king or queen and subjects, with a matrix of subordinate corporate political units.
Another reference to this point was in an earlier supreme court case,
American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511(1828),
concerning the Florida territory and Congress creating a body politic.
[The] legality of the powers, exercised by the Court of Key West, which depends upon the powers vested in the legislature of Florida, which finally depends upon the Acts of Congress, which created the body politic of Florida-that creating a body politic, is only creating a body corporate on a larger scale, but essentially the exercise of one and the same power- that whether the one or the other sues or defends, legislates or acts, by itself or its agents, all must be done with reference to the law that creates and organizes it; and in fine, in the language of the Court, in the case cited, ‘the charter, not only creates it, but gives it every faculty that it possesses.
… It is not only itself the mere creature of the law, but all its actions, and all its rights, are dependent on the same law,’ . . . It will be recollected, that it is not only in the territories that we find bodies politic created by the laws of the United States, but that near one half the states derive their origin and admission into the Union, under laws of the United States.
American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511(1828)
When we see the words Territory of Florida, State of Florida, or District of Florida, what is really being said is Body Politic of Florida, or Subordinate Corporation of Florida. By this process, the Territory of Florida acts as a sovereign power over that which is within its jurisdiction, and that corporation is also an inferior political society subject to its creator and the source of its so-called sovereignty. This same process is used to incorporate States into a national Union. It is national even though they might use the F word – Federal.
Introduction to Corporate Political Societies pg 33
THE KEY POINT
A state is not being created by the people in a state – a State is being created by an act of Congress as stated by the supreme court of the United States. The State that Congress is creating if a body politic and corporate as a political subdivision of the United States. It is a State in the stated called the United States.
It is not a state in the union of American states. It seems evident there is no need for, or reliance upon the people being the sovereign authority, to create political States. Congress is not creating a state to be acknowledged or admitted according the Constitution for the United States of America at Article IV, section 3, Clause 1. In fact it
is just the opposite. The people are treated as subjects or slaves of the national independent political society when Congress creates political States. The people (or should we say persons) are required, by an act of Congress, to ask permission of Congress before they can write a constitution. There are even some guidelines or directives from Congress that must be followed. Congress, in its national political character, will then determine if it meets their expectations.
When you think of a territory or an America state, you think of land, free people, and other attributes of substance. The fact is – Territory or State are words describing a corporation, a body politic, a corporate political society with rulers exercising sovereign powers derived from Congress or from the corporation called United States of America. Someone is creating a corporation, and the creator controls its
Creation. I use the word someone because Congress could be merely a nominal party to the event. Its name is being used by a real party in interest, usually a creditor.
Introduction to Corporate Political Societies
Take for instance a page from the IOWA CODE. Section 321.1A is entitled PRESUMPTION OF RESIDENCY. Does this statement mean that if any of the following seven (7) elements exist, the so called ‘natural person’, is a resident ‘of this state’? And if any of these conditions exist, the STATE OF IOWA, will PRESUME that the ‘natural person’ is a RESIDENT of the STATE OF IOWA.
IOWA CODE
321.1A PRESUMPTION OF RESIDENCY.
For purposes of this chapter there is a rebuttable presumption that a natural person is a resident of this state if any of the following elements exist:
1. The person has filed for a homestead tax exemption on property in this state.
2. The person is a veteran who has filed for a military tax exemption on property in this state.
3. The person is registered to vote in this state.
4. The person enrolls the person’s child to be educated in a public elementary or secondary school in this state.
5. The person is receiving public assistance from this state.
6. The person resides or has continuously remained in this state for a period exceeding thirty days except for infrequent or brief absences.
7. The person has accepted employment or engages in any trade, profession, or occupation within this state, except as provided in section 321.55.
“Resident” does not include a person who is attending a college or university in this state, if the person has a domicile in another state and has a valid driver’s license issued by the state of domicile. “Resident” also does not include members of the armed forces that are stationed in Iowa, providing that their vehicles are proper-ly registered in their state of residency. A corporation, association, partnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals whose principal place of business is located within this state is a resident of this state. [These are all fictional jurisdictions created in the mind of some politician, attorney, etc. They have nothing to do with the soil of the earth.]
6017. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior [outside] limits of the [Sovereign] state of California and includes [only] all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.
4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State
See Ed Rivera.com
The Federal government and all sub corporations can only create written laws for land owned by or ceded to the United States. See a map of the United States of America which designates all federal lands.
Hermes
August 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM
Then join your local republican government and do your part. I just discovered this over the weekend but there is a movement that is about to hit pay dirt. Adask will be all over this when he finds out here shortly…
Readers here are familiar with the story. Lets recap BRIEFLY to reach pay dirt ourselves.
Rev War ends late 1700′s…debts owed to someone.
Civil War period, the debts are brought back up as they haven’t been paid. South refuses to pay and walks out of Congress…literally. Quorum isn’t available to end the session. Lincoln invokes war powers to keep things going and starts up the war.
US GOV (de facto) is born in 1871 (act of) and then by 1933 civil war debts still aren’t paid and come due. Private gold is taken in exchange for debt rollover. Thus, private property is now property of US GOV that is the CORP Gov. You are pledged as collateral to keep the CORP going.
A group has stepped in last year and they aren’t perfect, but look up missourirepublic.org…basically they are stepping into the 1861 vacated de jure states. They claim international recognition by Hague, UN, and Universal Postal Union. They are seeking peaceful transition and open republic elections. Right before 7.4.11 the 50th state joined and sat a republic government. Adask I would LOVE to hear your comments on this!
Hermes
August 23, 2011 at 2:20 PM
Correction: RepublicofMissouri.org…most all states follow the same naming convention…
Michael
August 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM
Hermes,
I hate to burst your bubble, but Tim Turner and company are snake oil salesmen. This has gotten nowhere since it was started the beginning of last year. It originally started as RAP (Restore America Plan) by Sam Kennedy in Feb 2010. I would not hold your breath on this one.
Adask
August 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM
I don’t know enough to comment. I’m familiar with the theory of history that you present. I agree that it’s probably roughly correct. As for a new group that’s “stepping into the 1861 vacated de jure States,” I don’t agree that the States of the Union were fully “vacated” until about A.D. 1968. Where can I see evidence of this group’s recognition by the UN and/or the Hague?
Hermes
August 24, 2011 at 7:39 AM
Have you been following them Michael? They aren’t selling anything but an idea…I am supposed to meet with a local guy who claims to be a de jure senator for the republic here Saturday morning. I have browsed around and can’t seem to find anything on the individual republics on the Hague or UPU site. I sent an email to this local guy to ask where the files are located and I’d like to see them. We’ll see if he responds, if not, then this is total bunk…and I am sorry for getting ahead of my self but I’m done if you can’t tell.
He did make a very good point (I think), the courts aren’t recognizing UCC any more than they are recognizing a statement of sovereignty (which is basically signing up with them)…so is it really worth it to file the UCC, copyright, financing agreement etc when the courts don’t want to recognize that either? I’m either in a state of there is nothing you can do (which i dont tend to agree with) or I gotta stand up someway…
I’ve researched enough to know this whole edifice of government is a fraud. David needed one pebble…where IS our pebble? WE are the pebble…I AM the pebble! As fanciful as that statement is, I need practical solutions! Does anyone know of any success using common law standing such as this guy in England?
http://vimeo.com/10211543
Adask – why 1968? Something to do with the UCC being codified? Got a post on it already? :)
Adask
August 24, 2011 at 9:41 AM
Why “1968″ what? Are you referring to the government’s last year for redeeming silver certificates with real silver dollars? Or are you referring to my recollection that by A.D. 1968, all of the “states” had begun to combine the forms and procedures of law and equity into a single, common set?
Hermes
August 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM
AAAHHHH…you just answered the question…you are citing 68 tying back to the 1933 pay window being closed but you think the window didnt truly close till 68. Thus the abdication based on the ability to extinguish debt wasn’t fully realized till 68?
He responded to my request for information about the Hague etc…with nothing of substance or form :) except this http://mountcyllene.com/2011/08/24/mean/
(It’s a PDF of something called the missing13th and Article XIII that was removed from the Constitution)…the google embed doesnt seem to be displaying but a link to download is there…it mostly pictures of books from the early 1800′s and the article being there and now its not…itneresting reading, but not a document of the Hague…why do people have to embellish!?
Michael
August 24, 2011 at 6:08 PM
Hermes,
I have heard it all from these “gurus” promising remedy they have not even gotten themselves. I learned a long time ago to research everything I hear. If it cannot be backed up with evidence, well…
Dennis Craig has given us material that, most of which, is backed with evidence. I have even come across other info that just supports even more the fundamental teaching Dennis has brought forward regarding the appearance of reality.
What raises red flags with me is, anyone that sells a process via seminars touting having remedy does not have it. If gurus have to charge people claiming they have remedy stay clear of them; their only motive is to make “money”.
Hermes
August 25, 2011 at 8:09 AM
Comments section is improved! Awesome!
Michael,
I feel the same as you, however the republicofmissouri isn’t selling me anything. I am not buying a thing with money. I know I am buying a concept/idea.
I’m meeting with the gentleman Saturday morning and I will pepper him with a few questions and take it from there. I have quite a few…
Thanks for the reply!
Michael
August 25, 2011 at 9:01 AM
Hermes,
The reason I made the comment is, Tim Turner and company have touted that have so many countries have recognized the RuSA as the only lawful government, and so many tons of gold have been given to the cause. No gold has ever been forthcoming. In fact, TT and company have been selling ID packages that have been quite expensive. Many people have seen through the deception and, frankly, lies, that have been espoused as truth.
At one time I was interested in joining forces, that is until I did my due diligence in investigating. Do yourself a favor and scrutinize. Check out all claims being made. Be very careful!! End of my rant.
Blessings.
derick
August 25, 2011 at 3:34 PM
I “signed” up for the republic of minnesota this spring. I have been trying to get out of it for two months now. They have proven to be nothing but fraudsters as they will not respond to any of my questions. The rats are jumping from Tim Turnners republic to join with Eric Madsen of team law and others, the ship is sinking fast.
Please do your own research on these guys. I wish I would have.
derick
August 25, 2011 at 3:39 PM
BTW, Why would we need the approval of the Hague? That makes no sense at all.
Hermes
August 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR NCITES! I started feeling odd about it a couple days later after finding it and I couldnt verify anything…your comments made me think even harder pushing me over the edge.
Thanks again!
PS…i am looking into the Madsen character…never heard of em.
derick
August 26, 2011 at 6:17 PM
Hermes, Go to teamlaw. He has some good information but beware. Check out notmygovernment.us and pacinlaw. There are about 7 sites in all, great information.
If anyone has information on these sites, please let me know what you think, thanks.
Hermes
August 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM
@ work…team law is classfified as a weapons site!!!! HAHAHAHA! Corp censors hard @ work!