Addendum to New History of America II

This Addendum had to be written in 2008 because of further information that the 1996 writings taken by themselves would put one at a disadvantage if used solely as a guide to attack the government or be used as a defense. Since I had written and included in the New History, the Padleford case in 1996. This question was asked by one man;

“Request to the Informer: According to L Bork, (but Not Carl Miller) and others, we were not a party to the signing of the Constitution so it’s not binding on us. That means we have no hope. And disentangling ourselves from the 14th amendment citizenship is also no help because we have nothing else so save us from the oppressors. Am I right or not?"

That question generated this addendum. The details have been published here and not in any book. So this addendum that will be inserted with every book of the New History of America is also placed here for those that have purchased the “New History of America” as it would be impossible to find those purchasers all the way back to 1996.

Sincerely,
The Informer.

The Answer to the Question submitted December 3rd, 2008:

That’s correct in that we have no standing under the original con job, BUT and a big BUT, there is no longer a con job they can rely on that premise. It would be as the Padleford case states that we were not signers and have no standing. Being as they threw out the con job in the courts, which can be proven by the courts not allowing the con job from being used in the tax case, when they say “You can’t use the Constitution in this court.”

Of course… because the tax is a contract enforced commercial crime and that does allow standing under International Law of Hammurabi. That International Law is pure commerce under the UCC, which emanates from the old NIL, which created the Admiralty Jurisdiction in the first place, which is pure Hammurabi Law. The source for that is found in the Admiralty case of Southworth Machinery Co. Inc. v F/V Corey Pride, et al., 1993 AMC 2261 on page 2265, Footnote 3, citing Benedict on Admiralty (7th Ed) and 4 other cases from 1984 to 1989. They are all commercial under maritime principles and subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction. In that case we have standing under International Law of Hammurabi that existed in 1600 BC and ruled the entire world, including the Roman Empire, The Laws of Rodians promulgated 900 B.C., which preceded the Christian era by 4 centuries and were put there by Justinian’s authority about 533 A.D.; the Law of Oleron, the Phoenicians, The Egyptians, China, India, France, England. So you see they screwed themselves when one knows what law they are operating under. That law is the oldest law known by mankind, that being Hammurabi.

Hammurabi feared the Lord and wrote the laws as close to God’s law as possible to get rid of evil and help the people like us today. They should read all his laws that come as close to the Lord’s law as anyone can get. Hammurabi’s Laws used by the government does not preclude us from using the law against the government.

Of course the law that even trumps this man’s law is the Lord’s Law found in the Bible. But 99 percent of the People in America have shunned The Lord Almighty for man’s laws and seemingly they do want a King/President to give their allegiance to rather than to the Lord Almighty. People would rather live as they are now and read all the men in history, Plato, Servius, Paulus, Vattel, Blackstone, Story, Pardessus and the list goes on. Not one of these men has ever cited the Lord’s Law as the ultimate law and what they have to say, rather than what the Lord said to live by.

References to Hammurabi law was made by the U.S. Supreme court in modern times, They are Farrel v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S. Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed.850 and Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, 362 U.S. 539, 80 S.CT. 926, 4 L.Ed. 2nd 941.

All one has to do is invoke Admiralty law found in Title 28 as that’s where all Admiralty Rules were put, including the supplemental Rules of Admiralty A through F. You see that’s why they say you can’t bring the Constitution into a pure contract private Admiralty law scene. The courts have been operating in Admiralty since 1789.

This Admiralty was used in a tax case in South Carolina in 1994 and the man won his case when the IRS withdrew it’s case against the man on the civil side. So being the 14th has Constitutional ties means that it does not apply to the private man. So that is good.

Now the argument in Admiralty is, ‘where is the contract’ because in the Law of Hammurabi it is based on maritime contract pure and simple. Not using any constitutional arguments means the IRS would have to list the creditor if you filed a FDCPA against them as they are a private commercial collection agency and not a government agency.

Therefore, one of the 15 USC 1692g (b) requirements in validating the debt would be to produce the real Creditor of Interest. Now the IRS has three options in naming the creditor. It is either the Private Corporation of the thing called United States; it is the Private Federal Reserve; or it is the Bank of England. You see in Admiralty it is vital that all parties be brought forth in Admiralty Jurisdiction.

Since the IRS can’t represent any other private agency/organization, etc., it has no value to be a witness, but only to verify who the real creditor is that it is collecting for. All is not lost if the patriot community gets away from the myth that the biggest lie in history (The Constitution) is there to protect them, and get real in following what the government has used all these years. And yes, Admiralty applies to Driver license and Registration. That’s why the two tie together to denote a taxpayer. Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction in all its private commercial aspect is that which government continually attacks us with.

So the biggest thing one can do is start accepting the facts that the Constitution is not your protection as it was a myth fostered upon you for centuries to keep the slaves from finding out that the Constitutions were for ONLY those certain few people that it was written for because it really is the contract charter those few people have to abide by. We all know that Charter/contract was dispensed with in 1792 when Washington violated that charter contract in bringing in the Private Foreign controlled First Bank of the United States.