Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Hillary Clinton was a Liar Then and she is a bigger LIAR now...and it makes a FREAKING DIFFERENCE TO ME!

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior!

By DAN CALABRESE - Bet you didn't know this.
I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.
I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigatio
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)
To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.
Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.
“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”
That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.
But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.
After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.
Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.
(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.
The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:
Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.
Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.
As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.
Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.
In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:
Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .
In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.
Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.
“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.
Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.
But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.
All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.
“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”
Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.
By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.
“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”
Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.


The Illegal Quasi-Government

in Washington D.C.

The "Federal" Government is a Separate Nation
and should be called the United States, Incorporated. 


Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. The de jure states in the form of Republics and the de jure united States were subsumed, or set aside by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933. 

All  jurisdiction over criminal proceedings are initiated by the presumption any natural born American is an “enemy of the state,” or "resident alien enemy"  resultant to the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT of 1917 (aka TWEA)  as codified in Title 50 USC. Whereas, you actually come under Title 50 USC Appendix Application Sec. -§21, and as such, are not to be presumed either  “enemy of the state,” or "resident alien enemy" nor a repatriated US citizen. They ignore that to steal your wealth in what is called a "taking" which has to do with State sponsored Piracy.

The Courts and the States through Law Enforcement Officers are enforcing the following code on American nationals:  Title 50 USC Appendix App, Trading, Act, Sec. §4, “Licenses to enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance companies; change of name; doing business in United States,” as a result of the passage of The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 to Title 50 USC, TWEA, Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411) October 6, 1917.

That's why everything is licensed, registered or certificate of titled.

But here's the kicker....

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra)

You own no Property because you are a slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor. But you don't believe it, do you?
This Awareness indicates there are two governments operating in this country:
  • the United States of America is the Republic government created by the states, for the states, created by the people, for the people
  • and there is the US government, which is a corporate government, or corporation. This federal government, should be called the United States of America, Incorporated.
Corporations are not allowed by law to become politically charged in terms of their controls over the masses of a region.

The Illegal Quasi-Government in Washington D.C.
A corporation is simply an entity which makes its own rules for its own employees and for its own structural operation. The US government, which is on a ten acre parcel of property in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia), outside the United States of America is a corporation that has taken on the role of a quasi-government, but which has no legal authority to do so.

This Awareness indicates that any action whereby this quasi-corporation known as the United States Federal Government attempts to make laws, to impose laws on the states or on the people that have not been authorized by the states of the people, operates illegally. This Awareness indicates that any of the states or the people who give their allegiance, and give their rights to such a quasi-government are doing so illegally. Anyone who volunteers to let such a foreign entity control their lives is volunteering their freedom away illegally, and this is where changes will soon begin to occur, and where entities will begin to recognize a breech in the relationship between the people, the states, and the quasi-government in Washington D.C.

The Federal government, which is foreign to the United States of America, which is located in the District of Columbia, which is not part of the United States and which is in fact controlled to a great extent by the international bankers and by the laws and rules of the United Nations, whereby this Federal Washington D.C. state or country, has set itself up as a control over the United States of America as a quasi-government

This Awareness indicates that elected officials residing outside of the United States of America in Washington D.C., are not actually employees or officials of the United States of America, or its rules. The states' rules do not apply. The states' Constitution does not apply to these entities in Washington D.C. because they are acting outside the country in this second nation known as the Federal government.

This Awareness indicates in other words, the United States Federal government and the United States of America are basically two different countries, and the Constitution of the United States of America is not the law of the United States Federal government. Therefore, these entities cannot, while in the District of Colombia, be accused of treason. They are operating on behalf of the foreign bankers and their special interests.

Most entities are unaware of vanishing freedoms
This Awareness indicates essentially, these so called "freedoms" that entities have enjoyed or believe they had, are taken away without the public even realizing they are being taken. It is as though an entity is ushered into prison by a very powerful hypnotist and one who is very persuasive, who talks the entity along as he walks him towards the prison, and who even walks the entity through the gate and into the cell before the entity awakes to find he is imprisoned.

This is the way it will be for many entities. They will be deeply imprisoned, unable to escape before they know what happened. This Awareness indicates that of course, because there are many patriots who are well aware of what is coming, they have the opportunity to inform others and others have the chance to wake up before it is too late.

It becomes important for entities to recognize the need to risk communicating with persons of their own interest. If they are interested in the patriot movement, then it is important that they risk communicating with such entities, for you can't escape the reality by ignoring it. There are many entities who live in denial, right up to the time when they face the inevitable imprisonment, but of they recognize what is coming, if they are open to hearing what is evidenced in regards to the future events so that they do not ignore the evidence that is available through Patriot groups, then these entities stand a chance of adding their weight to the weight of others who are still dedicated to freedoms in this country and in other countries around the world.

Some U.S. States Now Seeking Sovereignty
This Awareness indicates, there are close to a dozen states in the US that have seriously been moving toward secession from the United States and regaining their own sovereignty. This Awareness indicates that Colorado, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Idaho, Hawaii; these are but a few of those mentioned as turning toward the pursuit of their state sovereignty. Technically, the "United States" refers to the states themselves, not the Washington D.C. government, and the Federal government, or the United States, Incorporated, refers to the corporation that is governing ten square miles known as Washington D.C. It is not part of the United States. It is a separate nation, incorporated as the United States of America, and it has self-appointed its own purpose as being that of extending rule over the separate United States. The sovereign states of the union being individually sovereign with their own constitution or charters or separate laws based on the Constitution of the United States.

The United States of Americas, Incorporated
This Federal government sees itself as a democracy, whereas the original states of the Union were a Republic . This Republic is no longer recognized by the "democracy" known as the United States of America. It should be understood that "democracy" essentially is majority rule, or what some call "mob rule," and a Republic is a system of government that is focused on the right of each individual. The rules are such to protect the rights of the individuals, not so much the mob or the majority, but of the individuals that make up the whole. This Awareness indicates that these things that most entities are not taught in their school or not taught through the news, through television or through the ordinary information sources of the country. It should be realized that the United States of America, Incorporated is dominated and controlled by 13 powerful banking families; the Rothschilds being a dominant influence, so that the laws are passed to help curb the freedoms of the states.

Most of the laws of the Federal government are essentially just corporate rules and corporate laws on the states who have become associated with the Federal government, given there allegiance or otherwise bought into the Federal government in Washington, D.C., a corporation. The government in Washington, D.C. is not set up to represent the states, but to control the states, as though they were subordinate corporations to this greater corporation.

Originally, the laws passed were by consent of the states, but it has reached a point now where the Federal Reserve Bank has such power and loans to the states or programs for the states can be financed from Washington DC, the states sell out and go along with the Federal programs in order to get Federal money.
This Awareness indicates that it has been a very slow and gradual take over of the states and their sovereignty and independence, so that the independence is more of a sham. The so-called independence day is a celebration that occurs each July 4th, more out of memory than out of actual reality of the present time. There is really very little independence. In fact, there is much talk of "interdependence," meaning that the states are dependent on the Federal government, and the Federal government has some reliance on the state for its taxes collected from the people of the various states, and in this sense there is an interdependence. They each depend on each other.

The Oversight of the Founding Fathers
This Awareness indicates this all came about by an oversight of the Founding Fathers, wherein the Rothschild lawyers and representatives recognized that the oversight was that Washington, D.C. government for the states had never actually been a part of the United States and therefore, they took over and created a corporation of this Federal government, making it a separate nation from the United states, and from that action began to move toward a gradual take over of the various states of the union through statutes and laws which the states bought into.
From Jackie Patru Sweet :
"Our Constitutional rights are under attack. While we sleep, local and state elected officials are legislating away our freedom by implementing federal legislation which does NOT apply -- Constitutionally -- to the several states. The President is acting as a king -- issuing "decrees" called Executive Orders -- which we are to believe overrides the Constitution for the United States of America, bypassing the system of checks and balances. Corrupt courts prosecute on false charges, ignoring the right to due process. To what may we attribute the impending death of our once great nation and the slave status of once-free Americans? Who is to blame for her state of bankruptcy and vulnerability?
We are, by our silence. Our lack of involvement is our acquiescence."
Why the Fed
The National Debt Are Illegal

This Awareness indicates that you must understand that when the Federal Reserve Bank, the privately owned Federal Reserve bank, was given authority to print Federal Reserve notes instead of the Treasury Department writing the Treasury Notes as directed by the U.S. Constitution, these Federal Reserve notes were not printed to be given out to the economy, in the way as the Treasury Notes of the Treasury Department. Rather, they were loaned to the U.S. government and then circulated into society, and society was required to pay back interest on the IRS notes and that amount of interest accumulated to the point of approximately 5 trillion dollars at this time (Revelations of Awareness newsletter issue no. 430 1994), to where, if everything in the United States were sold, half of the debt would still be owed.

This Awareness indicates that the Treasury Department has the potential for totally denouncing the Federal Reserve debt of 5 trillion dollars because it was illegal in the first place. The Treasury Department in the U.S. Constitution is the only proper way of financing the nation; Congress, operating the Treasury Department has the right to mint and coin money, and set the value thereof.

This Awareness indicates that in this fact, the Federal Reserve was never given any such a right, even with the vote of the Congress, because Congress did not have the right to relegate its obligations to the Federal Reserve, therefore the entire debt of five trillion dollars, because it was illegal in the fist place, is not forcible in a technical sense.

The District of Colombia a Loop-Hole
Another factor is that because the U.S. government is situated in the District of Columbia, which is not part of the United States, it is essentially, according to Black's Law Dictionary, a different nation entirely. It is a Federal Nation, which rules over the District of Colombia. It has no real jurisdiction over the rest of the United States in a technical sense, and to pass laws taxing another country such as the United States is technically and legally in error.

You are being taxed by a foreign country. This Awareness indicates that this is not right, if you look at it from a legal and technical sense. This Awareness indicates that therefore, in the creation of the United States with the Capitol situated in the District of Colombia, which was not a state, an error by the Founding Fathers occurred, but this error has had benefits for the Rothschilds in that it has allowed them to break rules of the Constitution without fear being charged for treason, because these entities are not operating from within the United States, they are operating from a different country.

Thus, they can pass off their obligations to a Federal Reserve board, a Federal reserve bank; they can make rules of taxation against the masses, which would constitutionally prohibited. This Awareness indicates that it is indeed a situation in which International Banking Cabal along with the Fabian Socialists took total advantage of the loopholes, or the mistake by the Founding Fathers of creating the seat of the government in a non-state, in a District of Colombia.
Once the Federal Reserve Bank was created, people of the government needing money would only borrow from the Federal reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve bank only had to go to the Treasury Department and get money printed at printing costs, and then loaned the money out at full face value, thus making enormous profits and putting this nation into enormous debt.

National Debt Not a Legal Debt
The debt that is known as the National Debt of so many trillion dollars is simply the result of borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank, the money that the Treasury Department prints for them, which is used to print for the country. In other words, instead of being printed for the United States, it is printed for the foreign bankers and the United states borrows from them and owes them the National Debt, and the National Debt is so high now (Revelations of Awareness Newsletter 94-14 no. 440) that your grandchildren will never be able to pay it off.

By the year 2000, the debt will be so high that the interest will be greater than the taxes brought in. This Awareness indicates that the country will be bankrupt again. This time it will be taken over totally. This Awareness indicates that this country went bankrupt in 1933 and the gold standard was removed from the dollar and this country will be again further bankrupted, even though it has been operating on Federal Reserve notes.

These Federal Reserve notes have been used in such a wasteful manner, that all the borrowed money from the Federal Reserve, creating the national Debt, have not worked to restore a solid economy for this country. It is likened into an entity who goods broke, is bankrupt, has nothing, but through the apparent gratuity of a banker, is allowed to borrow enough to get a fresh start on credit.
The entity begins working, using credit to rebuild an apparent business, but forgets perhaps that it is all borrowed money, and thinks that he is doing quite well in this new thriving business, only to discover that after awhile, he is getting nowhere and his business activities are suffering further damage, and that he owns far more than he ever imagined he would owe, so that he is even deeper in debt now than he was at the time he borrowed the money to start his new business.

According to Law, National Debt is Null & Void
This Awareness indicates essentially, this country is bankrupt several times over, and the only way that it can be made whole in a legal sense is when entities recognize that the law suggests that anything, any debt, any contract, any activity of partnership between entities which is based on fraud from the beginning, is null and void.

This Awareness indicates that in accordance with the law in the Western world, which has come down from Rome through England and into the United States, the law reads that any contract, any obligation, financial or otherwise, which is based on fraud and misinterpretation or illegal activity, is null and void from the beginning.

New World Order (Global Governance) Accelerated Due to Hildebrand Lawsuit

This Awareness indicates that because the Federal Reserve Act was illegal, according to the Constitution, and because the loaning of money by an illegal foreign bank to the United States government and its people and projects is based on a banking scam that was originally illegal, then the debts that were brought about from such loans, are themselves illegal.

This Awareness indicates that with this understanding, the National Debt could be and should be declared null and void. This Awareness indicates that this is the concept or theory behind the Hildebrand settlement with the Federal Reserve Bank and there are several other suits that have been brought against the Federal Reserve Bank based on similar or the same concept.
This Awareness indicates that wherein on the one hand, the debts are falsified, are originally based on misinterpretation and fraud; on the other hand, they appear to be real debts, both to the Federal Reserve Bank and to the 13 super-wealthy families of the world.

The appearance is that which these families wish to continue. It is that which is creating the extreme urgency to bring on the New World Order before enough people awaken to the fraud, to stop the takeover of the country by those who perpetrated this fraud early in this century, and they use every means possible to continue and perpetuate this fraud.

The Declaration of Martial Law
This Awareness indicates that when Lincoln was assassinated, no one thought to put an end to his declaration of martial law because of the civil War and because the martial law has continued up to this time, from the time of the Civil war, the nation can be directed by what is called Admiralty Law or martial law by simply command of the President or the authority of the land or his agents.

It is not even acquired by Admiralty law that Congress conduct proceedings to make laws. The Admiralty Law can provide statutes, which are called statutory laws, while the country is under Admiralty or martial law, but the Admiralty and martial law must come to an end and eventually, and this is the year (Revelations of Awareness Newsletter 94-14) in which it must either end or be reinstated.

Thus, within a short time, entities will find a new effort to create martial law in this country again. It may be martial law against what is termed a crime wave, even though crime has decreased two years in a row and has not increased much in the past several years. This Awareness indicates it still is considered to be a major concern by most entities, because crime is being advertised continuously on television and in the news media, to make entities feel that crime is ever on the march, ever on the increase.

The Illegal Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) Tax

How the Constitution's One Tax, the Excise Tax, Works
Most of the laws of the Federal government are essentially just corporate rules and corporate laws on the states who have become associated with the Federal government, given there allegiance or otherwise bought into the Federal government in Washington, D.C., a corporation. The government in Washington, D.C. is not set up to represent the states, but to control the states, as though they were subordinate corporations to this greater corporation.

Originally, the laws passed were by consent of the states, but it has reached a point now where the Federal Reserve Bank has such power and loans to the states or programs for the states can be financed from Washington DC, the states sell out and go along with the Federal programs in order to get Federal money.

This Awareness indicates that it has been a very slow and gradual take over of the states and their sovereignty and independence, so that the independence is more of a sham. The so-called independence day is a celebration that occurs each July 4th, more out of memory than out of actual reality of the present time. There is really very little independence. In fact, there is much talk of "interdependence," meaning that the states are dependent on the Federal government, and the Federal government has some reliance on the state for its taxes collected from the people of the various states, and in this sense there is an interdependence. They each depend on each other.
But this Awareness indicates this is not the way the country originally was created. The taxes originally allowed in this country were excise taxes, wherein it was likened unto a sales tax, wherein the grain from the farm was sold and the buyer of the grain owed or paid a tax, and the seller of the grain paid a tax and the grain was made into flour, and in the making of flour, a tax was imposed, and the flour was then sold to others and a tax was imposed and collected, and others took the flour and made pastry, everything from pasta to cakes and other types of pastry.

Today, there are in fact 72 turnovers on the grains that go into producing a loaf of bread, so that the bread is taxed 72 times in that which is termed an excise tax. This Awareness indicates that this was the way the Constitution taxed the public to make its money.

There was no such thing as an income tax, which was in previous times know as a head tax. Any income from products was recognized as corporation or business tax that came down from the products themselves, and the products created the taxes that were allowed to be used for public necessities, the funding of projects and so forth.

This Awareness indicates that prior to the Federal Reserve Bank, the Treasury was empowered to coin and mint money and any time money was needed, the Treasury was simply directed to print up the necessary money for the project. Thus, if money was needed for fighting the Civil War, rather than borrowing from bankers, the US government, under the direction of Abraham Lincoln, simply printed up the Lincoln greenbacks.

This saved the country from being bankrupt for many years. It would have gone bankrupt much sooner had Lincoln gone to the bankers and borrowed money to run the country during the Civil War. Once the Federal Reserve Bank was created, people of the government needing money would only borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve bank only had to go to the Treasury Department and get money printed at printing costs, and then loaned the money out at full face value, thus making enormous profits and putting this nation into enormous debt.

The Calm Before the Storm
The Document: "A Redress of Grievances"
(Excerpt from a CAC General Reading march 7, 1995)

This Awareness indicates there is a kind of quiet before the storm. This Awareness indicates that the Patriot groups have begun making certain demands on Congress and on the governors of the states to move back toward the constitutional laws of this country; this being done through a demand, a "Redress of Grievances". This Awareness indicates that it is a process that put Congress and government officials on notice that the Constitution is the law of the land and that they are expected as elected officials to abide by the Constitution, to which they have sworn an oath of allegiance, and that they are also informed that anything other is treason.

This Awareness indicates that this is presented through certified letters to members of the Congress and the state officials so that there can be no doubt as to the fact that they have been notified. This Awareness indicates that this not necessarily mean that entities will take the notification seriously, for there are many entities who have for so long catered to the international leadership, the UN leadership, and the banking controls, that they are not likely to pay attention to the people.
This Awareness indicates that it does appear it will be a grave mistake for these entities to ignore this Redress of Grievances. It also appears that there are some who are taking this seriously, more so than at any previous time. This Awareness indicates this is in the early stages.

This Awareness indicates that this may be seen as a political storm over whether the country is under the control of the Constitution, or under the control of the New World Order agencies such as the UN, such as the IRS, and the Federal Reserve Bank and other agencies that have been established to run this country over the past decades. Many of these agencies perceive themselves as the government, when in fact they are operating illegally, when in fact they were illegal from the beginning because it came from an illegal action. This is in the case with the Federal Reserve Bank and with the IRS. It is also the case with some of the other agencies that have developed and which pretend to be part of the United States government.

The Illegal Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
This Awareness indicates that the IRS, for example, was never legally authorized because the head tax, or income tax, was never ratified by the states, even though at a point someone in Congress stood up and made the statement that the income tax finally had been ratified by sufficient numbers of states and was now law, and this, without challenge from members of Congress, was accepted as being fact.

In reality, it was not true. It was a bald-faced lie, and entities, believing it was the truth, began to put together the tax system, and the IRS as tax agency, to collect from the people the head tax or the income tax. This Awareness indicates that there are many who realize this was fraudulent from the beginning, just as there are many who realize that the Federal Reserve bank does not have the right to produce false bank notes and pass them off as American money or United States of America money, because the Constitution has not given the Federal Reserve Bank such a right.


Over and over, OBAMA THROUGH HIS SURROGATES AND DEMOCRAT members of Congress asked the IRS to scrutinize 501(c)4 groups for their political activity—and also to scrutinize the agency's scrutiny of those groups.

DEMOCRATS IN Congress Put Pressure on the IRS to Investigate Conservative Tax-Exempt Groups

Over and over, DEMOCRAT members of Congress asked the IRS to scrutinize 501(c)4 groups for their political activity—and also to scrutinize the agency's scrutiny of those groups.








A report in Roll Call in March 2012 revealed that leading members of Congress not only were aware that the Internal Revenue Service had begun investigating the political activity of would-be 501(c)4 Tea Party groups that winter, but showed to what an extent members of Congress had been actively putting pressure on the agency to take a closer look at tax-exempt conservative organizations in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Reported Janie Lorber in 2012:
Tea party outrage over a spate of IRS letters to conservative groups has revived a long-standing dispute over the agency's controversial role in policing politically active nonprofits.
In January, the IRS began sending extensive questionnaires to organizations applying for nonprofit status as part of a broader project to understand whether social welfare organizations—which are not required to disclose their donors—are actually acting as political committees.
Campaign finance reform groups and lawmakers in both parties have repeatedly demanded that the IRS examine the activities of tax-exempt advocacy groups, which proliferated during the 2010 cycle and are on pace to play an even larger role in 2012.
Democrats, whose affiliated outside groups have lost the fundraising race to Republican organizations this year, have been particularly vocal, sending repeated letters to the agency requesting an investigation. On Wednesday, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) asked his colleagues in Congress to sign yet another.
Peter Welch is a Democratic congressman from Vermont and sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by California Republican Darrell Issa. Welch's March 2, 2012 letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman explicitly called on the IRS to crack down on 501(c)(4)s:
We write to urge the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate whether any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity.
Congress created a tax break for nonprofit social welfare organizations because communities across our country benefit greatly from their important work. It is clearly contrary to the intent of Congress for organizations supporting a candidate for office or running attack ads against a candidate to receive taxpayer support intended for legitimate nonprofit groups...
We strongly urge you to fully enforce the law and related court rulings that clearly reserve 501(c)(4) tax status for legitimate nonprofit organizations. And we urge you to investigate and stop any abuse of the tax code by groups whose true mission is to influence the outcome of federal elections.
In a statement accompanying the letter, Welch's office urged the IRS to "investigate whether nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations affiliated with Super PACs—such as Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-backed group spending millions of dollars in campaigns across the country—are in violation of federal law and IRS regulations."
Issa, for his part, sent a letter on March 27, 2012 in concert with Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio, who sits on House Oversight and chairs its Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, asking the agency to look into the Tea Party group complaints about excessive information requests.
"Over the past several weeks the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sent many organizations, operating under tax exempt status, lengthy and detailed questionnaires," Issa and Jordan wrote to Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, footnoting the above Roll Call story and a report in CNSNews as their sources. "These questionnaires ask for information well beyond the scope of typical disclosures required under IRS Form 1024....[S]everal experts suggest these recent IRS questionnaires exceed appropriate scrutiny."
"Moreover," they added, "the IRS must apply the same criteria for all organizations applying for tax exempt status. News reports, however, indicate that the IRS efforts lack balance, with conservative organizations being the target of the IRS's heightened scrutiny efforts."
A group of 12 Republican U.S. Senators on March 14, 2012 also complained to the IRS about the handling of the Tea Party and other conservative groups. "We have received reports and reviewed information from nonprofit civic organizations in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas concerning recent IRS inquiries perceived to be excessive," they wrote Commissioner Shulman. "It is critical that the public have confidence that federal tax compliance efforts are pursued in a fair, even-handed, and transparent manner—without regard to politics of any kind. To that end, we write today to seek your assurance that this recent string of inquiries has a sound basis in law and is consistent with the IRS's treatment of tax-exempt organizations across the spectrum."
Signatories on the letter included Orrin Hatch (Utah), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), and Rand Paul (Ky.).
Outside groups had been calling on the IRS to investigate non-profits—and especially nonprofit 501(c)(4) groups run by Republican political operatives—since at least the fall of 2011. The "IRS said examining the tax status of 501(c)4 political entities would be a priority for 2012," the Wall Street Journal reported in June 2012, noting that the agency was "taking initial steps to examine whether Crossroads GPS, a pro-Republican group affiliated with Karl Rove, and similar political entities are violating their tax-exempt status by spending too much on partisan activities."
Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, called on the IRS in 2010 to investigate tax-exempt groups, writing the IRS commissioner that September to request that the agency "survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization's intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization's primary activity." He said his request was prompted by news reports about the organizing efforts of conservative groups.
"Possible violation of tax laws should be identified as you conduct this study," Baucus wrote. "Please report back to the Finance Committee as soon as possible with your findings and recommended actions regarding this matter."
On Monday, Baucus announced plans to hold a Senate Finance Committee hearing into Friday's fresh round of revelations that the IRS had targeted conservative 501(c)4 groups.
According to a draft inspector general's audit obtained by the New York Times, the agency use of "tea party" as a key word to scrutinize applicants for tax-exempt status dated to March 2010 and continued through February 2012, when the Tea Party groups began to raise a public outcry.

Soros Gave $6.1 Million to Groups Linked to Pressure on IRS to Target Conservative Nonprofits

Soros Gave $6.1 Million to Groups Linked to Pressure on IRS to Target Conservative Nonprofits


With Soros funding, anything is possible. The growing scandal where the IRS unfairly targeted politically-conservative groups can be traced back to a lobbying effort begun by George Soros-funded liberal groups in 2010, after the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
The talking points of these groups then bounced around a carefully created progressive "echo chamber," until they eventually made their way into established media outlets. Key IRS policy changes about how it investigated conservative groups took place soon after it received three separate letters sent by Soros-funded liberal organizations.
Several Soros-funded groups including the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones and Alternet have worked to pressure the IRS to target conservative nonprofit groups. The subsequent IRS investigation flagged more than 100 tea party-related applications for higher scrutiny, including applications that included the words "Tea Party" and "patriot."
The IRS scandal can be traced back to a series of letters that the liberal groups Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 sent to the IRS back in 2010 and 2011. Both groups were funded by George's Soros's Open Society Foundations. The CLC received $677,000 and Democracy 21 got $365,000 from the Soros-backed foundation, according to the Foundation's 990 tax forms.
The letters specifically targeted conservative Super PACs like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, asking the IRS to scrutinize them more thoroughly to determine whether or not they should retain their tax-exempt status.
On Oct. 5, 2010, when the first letter was sent to the IRS, calling specifically for the agency to "investigate" Crossroads GPS. The letter claimed Crossroads was "impermissibly using its tax status to spend tens of millions of dollars in the 2010 congressional races while hiding the donors funding these expenditures from the American people." Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer wrote a blog post for the liberal Huffington Post to promote it, and the effort to get the media to notice the anti-conservative campaign began.
On June 27, 2011, a second letter by the CLC and Democracy 21 complained about enforcement of 501(c)(4) tax regulations, asking "that the IRS issue new regulations that better enforce the law." Two days later, an IRS senior agency official was briefed on a new policy targeting groups which "criticize how the country is being run," according to a Washington Post story. According to the Post, this policy was later revised.
A third letter by the CLC and Democracy 21, on Sept 28, 2011, got media traction. The letter showed the escalation of the left's complaint about 501(c)(4) groups. It challenged "the eligibility of four organizations engaged in campaign activity to be treated as 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations." The four organizations included Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA, American Action Network and Americans Elect.
The Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity ($2,716,328) published a "study" on 501(c)(4) groups, on October 31, which drew heavily from, and referenced, the CLC and Democracy 21. The Center for Public Integrity has strong media connections and boasts an advisory board that includes Ben Sherwood, president of ABC News, and Michele Norris, an NPR host, as well as a board of directors with such prominent names as Huffington Post CEO Arianna Huffington, Steve Kroft of CBS News's "60 Minutes" and Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist).
This study then led to a Mother Jones article about a month later, on November 18, which was reposted on the left-wing blog Alternet on November 21. By December of 2011, the topic had been picked up in a New York Times editorial, and then began receiving other media coverage. That editorial called for "the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on the secret political money already flooding the 2012 campaign from partisan operatives ludicrously claiming to be 'social welfare' activists."
On Jan. 15, 2012, the IRS targeted groups focused on limiting government or educating people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Alternet and Mother Jones are both members of The Media Consortium, which is designed to do exactly what happened here. The Media Consortium was created to be a progressive "echo chamber," where 63 separate left-wing media outlets can network and share ideas, as well as cross-promote stories. Other members of the Consortium include such liberal outlets as The Nation, Democracy Now! and The American Prospect. The consortium has also received $675,000 in Soros funds since 2000. Alternet ($285,000) and Mother Jones ($485,000) have both also received individual funding from Soros's Open Society Foundations.
This isn't the only time the IRS has targeted conservative groups recently, nor is it the only connection between the IRS and Soros-funded groups. The IRS gave the left-wing journalism site ProPublica the applications for nine conservative groups pending tax-exempt status.
The IRS also released the confidential donor lists of the National Organization for Marriage to the liberal Human Rights Campaign. Both the Human Rights Campaign ($2,716,328) and ProPublica ($300,000) are also Soros-funded. Despite its blatant liberal leanings, ProPublica boasts a staff of well-known journalists, including veterans of The New York Times and The Wall Street journal, as well as of liberal operations like the Center for American Progress and The Nation, and has even won two Pulitzer Prizes.
Timeline Shows Influence of Soros-Funded Groups
  • Sept. 16, 2010: TIME article "The New GOP Money Stampede" quotes Wertheimer;
  • Sept. 23, 2010: DISCLOSE act, a campaign finance disclosure act specifically targeting a Tea Party group, in the writing of which the CLC participated, fails in the Senate;
  • Sept. 28, 2010: Democrat Senator Max Baucus writes a letter to the IRS, citing the TIME article;
  • Oct. 5, 2010: Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center petition IRS, Wertheimer writes HuffPo article;
  • Oct. 7, 2010: Legal brief from HoltzmanVogel PLLC against the Democracy 21 petition;
  • Oct. 14, 2010: Dick Durbin asks IRS to investigate American Crossroads, HuffPo coverage;
  • June 27, 2011: Second petition to the IRS by CLC and Democracy 21;
  • June 29, 2011: IRS senior agency official Lois Lerner briefed on efforts to target groups which "criticize how the country is being run";
  • Sept. 28, 2011: CLC and Democracy 21 petition IRS again, this time about four conservative groups;
  • Oct. 31, 2011: CPI "investigation";
  • Nov. 18, 2011: Mother Jones article;
  • Nov. 21, 2011: Alternet repost of Mother Jones Article;
  • Dec. 29, 2011: New York Times oped;
  • Jan. 15, 2012: IRS targeted groups focusing on limiting government or educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights;
  • February 2012: First articles promoting this issue appear in New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times
$6.1 Million in Soros Funding Since 2000
Center for Public Integrity: $2,716,328
Campaign Legal Center: $677,000
Media Consortium: $675,000
Mother Jones: $485,000
Democracy 21: $365,000
ProPublica: $300,000
Alternet: $285,000
Human Rights Campaign: $600,000