Foreign principal Respondent, acting as "City METRO officer TITLE HERE" city of Washington, District of Columbia is agent of a foreign

n principal, a "foreign state" defined at Title 28 of the United States Codes 1603, and Title 22 U.S.C. 611 the Division of enforcement for the Department of revenue (for example C.R.S. 24-1-117 [Colorado]) under principal State Governor in convention with METRO organization a.k.a. Public Administrative Services Headquarters (PASHQ - signed for example by Edwin C. Johnson by John T. Bartlett; The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Year of Crisis 1933 Random House p. 21.) The Department of Revenue of course being the execution of bankruptcy proceedings against the citizens of the United States since 1933 currently formed "International Monetary Fund" and "World Bank" etc. - the State, City METRO municipal and police powers under United Nations charter law - protected by the same alleged positive law jural society (international treaty)

Dear David: I just reviewed Title 22USCASec.611 and it does not define "foreign state" It pertiently defines in subsection (e)The term"government of a foreign country" includes any person or group of persons exercising sovereign de facto or dejure political jurisdiction over any country,

other than the United States, or over any part of such

country, and includes any subdivision of any such group and any group or agency to which such sovereign de facto or dejure authority or functions are directly or indirectly delegated. Such term shall include any faction or body of insurgents within a country assuming to exercise governmental authority whether such faction or body of insurgents has or has not been recognized by the United States;

May I pose a question here about what 22USC 611 may be saying. Is it referring to the united States, or to the United States? The united States being the true government of this land, and the United States being the D.C. Corporation now running the current police state.

Just a thought. I think it is referring to the united States.

Lewis Do you deny that there is a differnce between the common law united States of America and the British corporation of 1867 The United States of America?

Would

you

have

us

accept

the

above,

just

because

it

was

on

some

website?

Just wondering,

Lewis

If he (judge) has a BAR card, he ain't no Article III judge I will get the graphics up as soon as I can. Maybe tomorrow. As to the action against the judge, should he choose to act: The action will be in the District Court of the United States and not the United States District Court. It will also be IN REM and in Admiralty. See, the filed Libel of Review is a contract with the court. In the contract, it stipulates that only an Article III judge can review this matter. Well, if he has a BAR card, he ain't no Article III judge. Folks have to remember these guys are your employees in this situation. The suitor is the captain of the ship. Is the captain going to let the crew mutiny? I certainly think not in this case. Therefor, both a criminal action in USDC will be brought, and an IN REM in the DC of the US will be brought. The first against the mutinous crew member, the second against the court which allowed the mutiny to occur. On a side note, we have done some things which allow us to arrest both the judge and the court and have them tried in another sovereign nation. The arrest to be effected by INTERPOL. Nation of choice at the moment is Zambia. I do not care to go into this any further at this time. Are we having fun boys and girls? If not, what are you waiting for? Peace be with you all,

Dear Lewis;

Very dynamic. It will take the tenacity you demonstrate - to execute arrest of federal "judges" etc. through Zambia. But if you have mastered the instrumentation and can guide your cause through this as due course, then it should make a very good point, at the least. You said: "The action will be in the District Court of the United States and not the United States District Court."

I have sent a .JPG page that is cover for an old case. I met a fellow from Oklahoma, with that common law jury bunch with Darrel Freck named Duane Smith. I suspect this is the same man who filed the action. Please post it in the graphics but until then I quote the justices of the Tenth Circuit: "Finally, Mr. Smith makes an elaborate, albeit misguided, argument challenging the jurisdiction of the district court, claiming a "United States District Court" is different in kind from the "district court of the United States". This argument is poppycock." A few years ago I advocated these things too. Dan Meador's philosophies etc. They would certainly explain a lot if they were true. But they are not. Like the circuit justices say, they are poppycock. Rumor Mill type of Internet sights keep the rumor mill rolling of secret filings and hidden courthouses that have been abandoned by lack of use. Junk. I once drafted a case in the U.S. Supreme Court based on the rumor there was the Ten Commandments on the wall. Too late did I call to verify what was a very convincing rumor. But the rumor and thus the call paid off. Did you know the proprietor of the phone (by reverse indexing Superpages) to the clerk's office there was actually "THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT"? But I started using that fact around Denver and they have changed it. But that explained a lot. That was great information and intelligence.

Regards,