Why a Constitutional Convention will not "fix" things

Why a Con-Con (Constitutional Convention) will not fix our problems -

Do we all or any of us really believe that every person who has been elected to Congress for the past 75 years is a traitor, and that they all have knowingly and willfully intentionally discarded the Constitution? I seriously doubt it - I know I don’t believe that.

What if there was another reason for what is going on? We regularly hear that the government is acting under martial law, imposed during and left over from Lincoln’s illegal attack on state’s rights, in a so called war which was never declared by Congress; However there are numerous Supreme Court decisions both during and after the Civil war wherein the SC clearly proclaimed that martial law could only operate where civil authority was unable and was not functioning; further, that even when martial law was declared it could not operate when the civil authorities were functioning, even in areas where there was actual warfare going on. Additionally, the SC opined that in order for martial law to cease it was not necessary for an official proclamation, that martial law ceased automatically when the civil authority was able to function. According to these many SC rulings, and as there is no disruption of civil authority in the United States, then it follows that martial law is not in effect; so what is going on?

There is a much more insidious explanation of which there is considerable evidence - the most well know being a Congressman's statement in the Congressional Record that the Congress was then presiding over the reorganization of the biggest bankruptcy ever - the bankruptcy of the United States.

Consider the evidence:

Everything that others mention in their posts (on Suijuris and elsewhere), regarding the “unconstitutional� conduct of our government and “our� public servants, seems to be fairly clear evidence of operations under bankruptcy foreclosure receivership.

If Sears Roebuck were foreclosed upon by a lender for non payment of a loan the lender could then opt to operate Sears Roebuck in the same manner as Sears operated prior to the foreclosure and not tell anyone about the foreclosure and/or takeover by the lender; however there would be no lawful or legal obligation whatsoever for the bank to do so. As time passed the bank could change the operation of Sears as it saw fit without regard to the original corporate charter that Sears had been incorporated under. From all appearances that is precisely what is going on with the government of the U.S.

We all have heard the stories of the numerous detention camps that have been built all over the country and the evidence of their existence is substantial - for what purpose other than as relocation centers for those who do not do as they are told after the foreclosure is publicly announced.

We all are aware that judges regularly order patriot litigants not to mention the Constitution, especially in traffic court; this is because the courts are not operating under nor bound in any way by the Constitution. The judges rarely if ever impose such restraints on licensed attorneys; could this be because licensed attorneys know the circumstances under which the invocation of the Constitution is authorized by the receivers?

When a conqueror invades a nation heavily populated with civilians international custom and practice “requires� that the conqueror impose a form of martial law. Under international custom and practice such imposition generally utilizes the preexisting municipal political structure, as much as possible, to the extent it serves to keep order among the conquered civilians. The conqueror will “assure� those conquered that as long as they do as they are told they will be permitted to continue living their lives pretty much as before (as "we" did to the Native Americans). The conqueror would most likely even have the local government officials continue operating the government in order to convince the locals that everything was going to pretty much continue as before (as "we" did to the Native Americans and as the Germans did in France during WWII), but the conqueror would privately inform (order) the local officials that if they did not go along and cooperate that they and their families would quietly "disappear". Little by little the conqueror will slowly change the rules as it sees fit as there would be no obligation for the conqueror not to do so (as "we" did to the Native Americans). The conqueror would be free to do as it pleased (as "we" did to the Native Americans).

IMHO there is no difference between what I have described regarding how a conqueror would govern and how a lender would govern a nation the lender had foreclosed upon. I have heard over the years that the foreclosure was implemented in 1933, when the Federal Reserve was put in place and that in 1938 a secret meeting was held where all of the highest court judges and attorneys from all over the country were called together and given their marching orders and informed of the conditions that they would be required to adhere to if they wanted to be permitted to remain in their lucrative judicial and/or advocate positions, depended on their cooperation; those who did not go along were quietly disposed of.

I expect the same kind of "marching orders" are given to those who are elected to Congress and other high offices. From that point on (1938) the courts operated under "public policy" rather than under "public law". This was clearly the case in "Erie Railroad v Tompkins, a 1938 case. It was about that time that the courts started operating under the UCC. Those litigants who proceed in a manner which follows the provisions of the UCC (even when they don’t directly invoke the UCC) are treated accordingly, such as reserving their rights under UCC 1-207 or by simply challenging the jurisdiction of the court and making them prove they have jurisdiction, which they cannot do without the defendants acquiescence (even under the UCC, all parties must in some way volunteer - the UCC actually goes further and requires a knowing and informed consent).

When viewed from this perspective many seemingly unexplainable conditions become understandable. The so called national debt is non-existent and nothing but smoke and mirrors because those who own the Federal Reserve also own (almost) everything else - including all of those persons who voluntarily claim to be US citizens (under the UCC, which is contract law, all parties must volunteer). The president will do as he is told as will the Congress, they will all go through the motions of governing but when the votes are cast they will vote as they have been instructed.. The Constitution is not being ignored; the Constitution is simply not in effect, the UCC is now the Constitution FOR the United States of America.

There is a way for each continental state (as opposed to national state) to op out (of the foreclosure) even if the federal government is operating under receivership, as seems fairly clear.

A Con-Con will be of no positive effect - just more smoke and mirrors; but the serious danger of a Con-Con is that it would provide a "Constitutional" means (more smoke screen) by which the receivers could do away with the Constitution as we know it because the state legislators (acting under duress - like the southern states did during the “reconstruction� imposed on the southern states after Lincoln’s illegal war), would also do as they are told (as they now already seem to be doing) by ratifying any and all changes the receivers propose (all in the name of protecting us from the their conjured up "terrorists").

Please note that “President� Bushwhacker omitted the words, “and with no mental reservations�, from the presidential oath when he was purportedly sworn in as “president.�

Cheers,

Yadu Alipuria

[RickA]

Yadu said: There is a way for each continental state (as opposed to national state) to op out (of the foreclosure) even if the federal government is operating under receivership, as seems fairly clear.

Rick asking: What would be the way to opt out?

Thanks

Hi RickA -

In answer to your question posed as to how a state might op out of the bankruptcy, I offer the following as a possibility:

The Constitutional contract clearly limits Congress’ ability to borrow only gold and/or silver on the credit of the Continental United States, therefore the entire bank credit debt borrowed by Congress could only be on behalf of the federal United States. The national debt is not owed by the Continental United States. It is owed by the federal United States that unconstitutionally borrowed the unbacked Federal Reserve Notes. The federal United States manipulated the States, under the UCC, into becoming an accommodation party for the federal debt.

This was accomplished when the federal government, through the unconstitutional conversion of our money system from gold/silver to paper, forced the states to use "Federal Reserve Notes," colorable money, which makes everything the states did thereafter to be colorable coercion. As the states had no interest in creating this debt (the states were not a party to the contracts), this makes the foisting off of the debt onto the states to be no interest contracts. No interest contracts are unconscionable contracts and are void and unenforceable. Under the UCC this makes the states to become the unwilling accommodation party to the federal debt.

Up until the time the bankruptcy becomes publicly admitted a state could (and should) file a lawsuit claiming the state cannot be held liable for the national debt, because the state is, at best, only an accommodation party to the unconstitutional debt incurred by the federal government, which unconstitutional act forced the state to become a party by means of a no interest unconscionable contract.

It would seem to me that such a suit would have to be heard in an international tribunal, in order to be heard by an impartial panel.

Cheers,

Yadu Alipuria

[RickA]

To me the "continental states" and "United States" are still made up of people. I realize that the people that make up the "United States" will defend that, but I also realize that the people that make up the "continental states" will defend that side as well so, to me, it comes down to a numbers game. Where I hope to be going with this is that those who make up the "continental states" should simply say no more

I understand that is easier said than done. I'm not to keen on an international tribunal.

Hi RickA -

It would help if you were more specific. To your knowledge, what is the correct political status designation of those whom who refer to as the people of the continental states and, likewise, to your knowledge, what is the correct political status designation of those whom who refer to as the people of the United States??

Cheers,

Yadu

[RickA]

Truth is "to my knowledge", I don't know the correct designation for either. Part of that due to the different designations being used and part due to me not digging any deeper. The two I used in my prior post was my "best extrapolation" from your post prior to that.

All along it was my belief that their is only one, that being the "we the people".

In my still being new to this site, and "sniffing" a couple others similar to this one, I'm still reading, searching, to see just what is there.

I'm of the belief that man's "way" is fruitless.

[dimarco123]

Yadu Alipuria WROTE:
Up until the time the bankruptcy becomes publicly admitted a state could (and should) file a lawsuit claiming the state cannot be held liable for the national debt, because the state is, at best, only an accommodation party to the unconstitutional debt incurred by the federal government, which unconstitutional act forced the state to become a party by means of a no interest unconscionable contract.

It would seem to me that such a suit would have to be heard in an international tribunal, in order to be heard by an impartial panel.

THE ABOVE comment appears feasible, but will a state attorney actually petition for such remedy, and how would it be enforced. I would like to think Vermont would try such a task as their state has pepole interested in succession from the union, perhaps this could be an alternative to that detachment? Just have an economic/debt liablity decision concerning the national debt.

Hi Group -

I do receive notification when posts are made here in regard to my previous posts but I just do not have the time to respond here.

I have a Yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whoru, which I post to in conjunction with my internet and short wave radio WhoRU show on RBNlive.com, at 11:00 am, central.

If you would pose related questions to me on my Yahoo group or call in on my show, I will be happy to respond.

Thanks, and

Cheers,

Yadu (Eric Williams)

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Yadu

[cut]

Please note that â**Presidentâ** Bushwhacker omitted the words, â**and with no mental reservationsâ**, from the presidential oath when he was purportedly sworn in as â**president.â**

Cheers,
Yadu Alipuria

Yadu, prove the abridgement of the oath please?