New Links 9/21/07:

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/HAMMER_DECLARATION.pdf

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/LANGAN.pdf

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MUELLER_LETTER.pdf   

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/NICHOLS_DEC_WO.pdf

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ORDER.pdf

 
Oklahoma Bombing Cover-Up 1:47:57

The following .pdf documents were sent to APFN
to upload for Public viewing, Compliments of
MR. HARMON L. TAYLOR
P O BOX 516104
DALLAS, TX 75251
Phone: (214) 361-0401
Fax: (214) 361-0306
State Bar of Texas
Appellate Section
http://www.tex-app.org/bylast.php?firstletter=T

####

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/whywebother.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/letter.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ohreally.html
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/CoverSheet.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsLappin.pdf

Notation for the following document:

It may make perfect, intuitive sense why Lappin is the Defendant.

It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a
Necessary Party. It's in the pleadings, but let me address that here,
briefly.

Land ownership in the "constitutional Government" depends upon a couple
of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17.
First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such
as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State
Legislature of the State in which the property is found.

For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership
in the "constitutional Government" have ever shown up; not in the deed
records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or
Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don't
exist regarding the Murrah Building.

Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned
by the "constitutional Government."

If the distinction between the "federal government" and the
"constitutional Government" is a topic for which additional information
would be helpful, I can also send my "Dissertations on Definitions" page
from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term
"federal" means. In sum, "federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean
"national." It most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal"
has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the
Constitution. The "federal government" does not arise from the
Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language
by which we can limit the "federal government."

The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized,
and properly so, as a "federal enclave" is the confession that it is, in
fact, private property.

Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property
on which sits the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a
flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution.
Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we
were able to locate a deed transferring title "to the United States of
America, or its successors," for that property. However, and also thanks
to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in
particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were
completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana
"consenting" to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the
"constitutional Government" never owned that property, either. And,
again, the proper characterization of that property's being a "federal
enclave" is the confession that it, too, is private property.

Here's the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property
is not owned by the "constitutional Government," that makes it property
that is subject to the authority of the "state." And, since we cannot
find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the
"United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a "for profit" business
enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a "not for
profit" business enterprise.

When a "not for profit" business entity gets sued, it is the traditional
rule that the AG of the "state" must be included as a Necessary Party,
especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly
did. The reason is that the "state" AG is a necessary party to all suits
involving public charitable trusts, and if the "state" AG is not
included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG,
at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on
failure of proper notice to the "state" AG. Some "states" may have rules
that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter.

In sum, because, through a "no evidence" line of proof, we CAN establish
that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on
property owned by the "constitutional Government," we know that it is a
business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That
being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a
"for profit" business enterprise, of some organizational structure or
other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable
trust, and if that's the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party
to the suit.

The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as
to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or
"not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't
know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered
questions continues to give us a clue.
per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsINAG.pdf

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Appearance.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mphv.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/origcomp.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/grahamaff.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mti.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceUSAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG02.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mlvsuppl01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtroupd01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion01.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseUSAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseINAG.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/briefshwcse.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion02.pdf

Notation On the Notice of Appeal:
This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I
think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long
story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and
Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin,
and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote
out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop.
Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so,
to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what
I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that
length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the
appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when
the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day.
VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful.
The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a
certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the
"original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps"
and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal!
Harmon
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AFFIDHLT-1.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion03.pdf
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion04.pdf

Notation: for the following document

Key to the appellate
court opinions is the characterization that the claims made were
"without authority," and that the claims have "no merit." While the rest
of the court's discussion is interesting, this part of the opinion tells
us everything we need to know. The appellate court went beyond
addressing the issues raised and addressed the question asked, which is
along the lines of, "How in the world can this be happening, legally
speaking?" Since the essence of these claims comes straight out of the
Constitution, the lesson is that the Constitution is "without
authority," and that the Constitution has "no merit," in the "United
States" "court" system. Said another way, the Constitution is not
"admissible evidence of Law," and, that being the case, the Constitution
is not the Supreme Law of the Land. From that point of view, given that
the "federal government" arises from private obligations, not the
Constitution, it makes sense that the Constitution is completely
irrelevant, and that is provides absolutely no limitations on the
"federal government," whatsoever. THAT's how the "feds" do what they do,
legally speaking.

Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it
correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish
between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government,"
but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional
Government" in operation, but only the "federal government."

The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is
still a good link to that.  

Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this
case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the
Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have
occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the
"court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by
the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v.
Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States
District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to
the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and
the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those
cases came on for trial in the early 1850's.

Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional
Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for
two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections
before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere
in the Constitution for choosing a President.

And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the
"popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the
sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It
definitely earmarks that event for our study.

The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just
didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's
as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get
me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal
experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope!

To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which
I'll close this note.

The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government."
Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article
I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for
Representatives represent People in the States.

And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent
the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to
look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the
non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular
"notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that
the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years
"late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such,
participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only
is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate.

Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress.

Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President.
From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in
the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing
the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there
are no Electors, there is no President.

Thus, where there are no States, there is no President.

Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges.
From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and
the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there
is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no
Advice or Consent.

Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges.

In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for
not one Office can be filled.

Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government"
and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present
non-existence of the "constitutional Government."

The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for
the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the
enemy."

Harmon

per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/THlitovervw.pdf

Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Re: Stay of Execution
by Harmon L. Taylor
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_execution.htm

   

WHO had access to the Murrah Building?

Who were the Two Men Jane Graham saw? Filed last Friday afternoon (05/11/01) by a Dallas lawyer representing Jane Graham and V.Z. Lawton, two bombing victims who were in the destroyed federal
building at the time, the lawsuit asks the federal court governing Terre
Haute prison to stay McVeigh's execution pending a civil suit the victims
have filed - claiming that McVeigh is an indispensable witness in that
lawsuit, which is now in the discovery phase.

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING COVER-UP http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_motel.htm Company Boy the connection between the FBI, Secret Service, White supremacists and McVeigh http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Company-Boy.pdf APFN Oklahoma City Bombing 'Pogo Radio Your Way' http://www.apfn.net/OKC-pogo.htm UPDATE: Larry Nichols Affidavit Dated 11/08/06 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/nichols.htm   Video: Oklahoma Murrah Bombing another False Flag Op 3/1/07 - Alex Jones interviews: Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue AUDIO: http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L002I070301SS2.MP3 New Links 9/21/07: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/HAMMER_DECLARATION.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/LANGAN.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MUELLER_LETTER.pdf    http://www.apfn.org/pdf/NICHOLS_DEC_WO.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ORDER.pdf "WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH... FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH; TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT." ---- Patrick Henry http://www.apfn.org/   FBI did NOT follow all links to Arab conspiracy OKC bombing   Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage Video: Brigadier General Ben Partin speaks about Oklahoma City, Waco & Communism http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4224779103128976372&q=wallace+institute&hl=en   Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones McVeigh Video Destroys OKC Bombing Official Story Mon Dec 18, 2006 20:08 McVeigh Video Destroys OKC Bombing Official Story Shows McVeigh was in military receiving instruction in "explosives and demolition" over a year after official story says he was discharged, whistleblower harassed for years while unknowingly in possession of bombshell tape Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Prison Planet Monday, December 18, 2006 A video that shows Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh at a U.S. military base that specializes in explosives and demolition training over a year after he supposedly left the army puts the official story of the April 19 1995 federal building bombing under serious doubt and mandates a re-opening of an investigation into the terror attack that killed 168 people. The video was released by Bill Bean, a film producer who has suffered intense surveillance and harassment since taking the footage, and is the subject of a February 2007 Hustler Magazine feature story. On August 3rd 1993, Bean was given a tour of the Camp Grafton military facility in North Dakota as part of a research effort to scout possible shooting locations for a film he was working on. Bean met the Camp Superintendent Col. Dahl and was permitted to film every location he visited. ----------- "I did not realize how significant what I had was, for many years," states Bean, "It was not until Mcveigh’s trial that I realized it was Mcveigh in the tank. Even then the larger point escaped me. That point is, McVeigh was not supposed to be in the military at that time. His military record shows him enlisting in 1988, being honorably discharged from the Army, on Dec. 31, 1991. His records then show he was in the Army reserve in Buffalo New York, from January 1992 until May 1992, he was then honorably discharged from the Army reserve. After May of 1992 he was never again in uniform on any base anywhere, never again part of the military. He was totally out of military service. The FBI states the only time they lose track of McVeigh, in his entire life, is the late summer of 93. They think he was somewhere between Kingman Arizona and Decker Michigan. Probably at gun shows, meeting antigovernment rightwing militia types. But he wasn’t, he was at Camp Grafton, in uniform, learning explosives and demolition!"   Update 05/25/05: Judge ordered disclosure of info on informants that could shed light on Oklahoma City tragedy http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_UPDATE2.htm MURDERED BY OKLAHOMA Ken Trentadue http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_Trentadue.htm Officials had prior knowledge of bombing http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_update.htm =================================================== You were told there was only ONE explosion to blow up the MURRAH BUILDING? Listen to the News....again! http://www.apfn.org/audio/okc.ram http://www.apfn.org/audio/okc2.ram WHO KILLED TERRY YEAKEY? Only a couple of hours into the rescue, Sgt. Terrence Yeakey became painfully aware of something disturbing. Did he somehow figure out that the building had been blown from the inside and that the news reports were baloney? Did he overhear a strange conversation from some of the many ATF agents who were on the scene sooner than they should have been? Whatever it was, Terry was upset. He called his wife that morning crying - the big ol' Teddy Bear of a guy was crying - and saying repeatedly, "It's not true. It's not what they are saying. It didn't happen that way." Terry Yeakey may have been the first to discover the sham. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/yeakey.htm [APFN] The Terrance (Terry) Yeakey Incident Terrance (Terry) Yeakey was a courageous young black Oklahoma City police officer who was on duty near the Murrah Building the morning of that building's bombing. Officer Yeakey entered the bombed out Murrah building and saw things that apparently caused him to be murdered. The hideous details are within these audio tapes, an interview with Terrance Yeakey's wife: (Real Player) Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm ========================================= The Middle Eastern connection to Oklahoma City http://www.apfn.org/OKC/middle_eastern.htm CEREBELUM http://www.cerebellum.tv OKC Blast Linked To bin Laden-FBI Refused To Accept Evidence http://educate-yourself.org/nwobinladenokcbomblink21mar01.html Execution Eye Witness - Susan Carlson, Media Witness: 4 min. 27 sec. "he appeared to be still breathing or what appeared to be shallow breathing, even after being pronounced dead and his eyes remained open". Windows Media Player) - See and hear this first. Execution Eye Witness http://www.apfn.org/movies/mcveigh-lives.WMV     http://okcbombing.org/      To Order the " Final    Report" on the OKC bombing:   Call toll-free 800-334-5597 For more information write to: Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee PO Box 75697 Oklahoma City, OK   73147 [[We bought this book "Final Report" and highly recommend it!]] Transcript of the Press Conference http://www.apfn.org/OKC/press.htm The Terrance (Terry) Yeakey Incident Terrance (Terry) Yeakey was a courageous young black Oklahoma City police officer who was on duty near the Murrah Building the morning of that building's bombing. Officer Yeakey entered the bombed out Murrah building and saw things that apparently caused him to be murdered. The hideous details are within these audio tapes Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey1.rm    Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/audio/tyeakey2.rm Officer Terrance Yeakey M.L. Montgomery wrote in message 35A0E386.2CAD563@swbell.net ... I don't know about this story, however Officer Yeakey was a DARE officer for Mustang (Oklahoma) Schools in addition to being involved in the Murrah Building Bombing rescue efforts. My son was one of his students and Officer Yeakey had a *profound* effect on him and the other students. Many of his DARE students attended his funeral and all, including my son, received counseling. Our understanding was that Officer Yeakey, despondent over the break-up of his marriage and suffering post-traumatic stress from his role in the bombing, took his own life. http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=35A2E846.2440A0@lr.net Suspicious Deaths In the first minutes and hours following the blasts that devastated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, the morning of April 19, 1995, a number of selfless individuals risked life and limb to rescue many of the victims. Among them were Oklahoma City police officers, Terrance Yeakey, Gordon Martin and Ken Griffin, a number of Oklahoma City firefighters, Dr. H. Don Chumley, G.S.A. employee Mike Loudenslager and others. http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=cNVu4.253$JY.490@pravda.msen.com DAVID KULKENDORFER (Oklahoma County Sheriff's Reserve Deputy): Excerpt: Well, later on, during the evening, a lot of public officials started to show up. The mayor showed up with a contingency, and the district attorney, the governor, and several dignitaries. I was standing approximately in front of the Water Resources Building, to try to keep people out and watching the search and rescue. As I looked to my left, I could see Congressman Istook kind of working his way east to west. Well, he worked his way up to me and he stopped to my left and introduced himself and we kind of small-talked a little bit about, "How's everything? It's a bad, bad, bad deal." And he made the comment to me, he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen." And I said, "Excuse me?" And he says, "Yeah, we knew this was going to happen. We got word through our sources that there is a radical fundamental Islamic group in Oklahoma City and that they were going to bomb the federal building." http://www.apfn.org/OKC/ISTOOK1.htm       USA vs TERRY LYNN NICHOLS     Oklahoma Bombing Cover-Up 1:47:57   The following .pdf documents were sent to APFN to upload for Public viewing, Compliments of MR. HARMON L. TAYLOR P O BOX 516104 DALLAS, TX 75251 Phone: (214) 361-0401 Fax: (214) 361-0306 State Bar of Texas Appellate Section http://www.tex-app.org/bylast.php?firstletter=T #### http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/whywebother.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/letter.html http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ohreally.html http://www.apfn.org/pdf/CoverSheet.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsLappin.pdf   Notation for the following document: It may make perfect, intuitive sense why Lappin is the Defendant. It may not be quite so clear why the State AG is also named, and as a Necessary Party. It's in the pleadings, but let me address that here, briefly. Land ownership in the "constitutional Government" depends upon a couple of things, both of which are found in Article I, section 8, clause 17. First, there must be evidence of transfer of title to the property, such as by a Deed, and secondly, there must be Consent by the State Legislature of the State in which the property is found. For the Murrah Building, neither of these forms of evidence of ownership in the "constitutional Government" have ever shown up; not in the deed records, not in the legislative records, not in either trial (McVeigh or Nichols). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these documents don't exist regarding the Murrah Building. Conclusion: The land on which stood the Murrah Building was never owned by the "constitutional Government." If the distinction between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government" is a topic for which additional information would be helpful, I can also send my "Dissertations on Definitions" page from legalreality.com, which explores, in some detail, what the term "federal" means. In sum, "federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national." It most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" has everything to do with private obligations and nothing to do with the Constitution. The "federal government" does not arise from the Constitution, which also means that the Constitution is not the language by which we can limit the "federal government." The fact that the Murrah Building and that property are characterized, and properly so, as a "federal enclave" is the confession that it is, in fact, private property. Apply this line of thought one more time. As it turns out, the property on which sits the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute also has a flagrant problem with title, from the point of view of the Constitution. Thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, we were able to locate a deed transferring title "to the United States of America, or its successors," for that property. However, and also thanks to excellent and very much appreciated assistance in Indiana, in particular through the Notre Dame School of Law library, we were completely unable to locate any act by the State Legislature in Indiana "consenting" to that transfer of title. Therefore, we know that the "constitutional Government" never owned that property, either. And, again, the proper characterization of that property's being a "federal enclave" is the confession that it, too, is private property. Here's the legal consequence of these conclusions. Since this property is not owned by the "constitutional Government," that makes it property that is subject to the authority of the "state." And, since we cannot find any formal business organizational documents telling us that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is a "for profit" business enterprise, we must presume the possibility that it is a "not for profit" business enterprise. When a "not for profit" business entity gets sued, it is the traditional rule that the AG of the "state" must be included as a Necessary Party, especially in matters sounding in equity, which this one most certainly did. The reason is that the "state" AG is a necessary party to all suits involving public charitable trusts, and if the "state" AG is not included, then the entire matter can be dismissed at the whim of the AG, at practically any stage, including post-judgment, based solely on failure of proper notice to the "state" AG. Some "states" may have rules that vary some from this, but this is the traditional gist of the matter. In sum, because, through a "no evidence" line of proof, we CAN establish that the "United States" Penitentiary in Terre Haute is not sitting on property owned by the "constitutional Government," we know that it is a business entity subject to the authority of the State of Indiana. That being the case, and not having affirmative proof that it is, in fact, a "for profit" business enterprise, of some organizational structure or other, the question arises that it very well may be a public charitable trust, and if that's the case, then the Indiana AG is a necessary party to the suit. The Indiana AG's Office never provided proof, one way or the other, as to any Consent by the Indiana Legislature or of the "for profit," or "not for profit," character of that Penitentiary. So, we still don't know, for certain, but the series of reasonable and still unanswered questions continues to give us a clue. per the above article: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/SummonsINAG.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Appearance.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mphv.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/origcomp.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/grahamaff.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mti.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/brief.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceUSAG.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG01.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AppearanceINAG02.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mlvsuppl01.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtroupd01.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion01.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseUSAG.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/ResponseINAG.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/briefshwcse.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion02.pdf Notation On the Notice of Appeal: This is an interesting part of the story. That weekend was a wild one. I think I traveled close to 1200 miles, all within Texas. To make a long story short, I was enroute from Dallas to Houston to pick up my Sister and Niece, so that we could go to a High School Reunion function in Austin, and, in the rain, on I-45 South, about the Woodlands, I pulled over, hand wrote out the Notice of Appeal, and faxed it to Indiana from a truck stop. Rather than rushing into the appeal, it took me until about 3:30 or so, to get in touch with one more valuable opinion on this issue. He heard what I could tell him in 10 minutes, on two different phone calls of about that length, and he found value in the position. That's when I filed the appeal, and it was literally about 10 minutes prior to "closing" in Indiana when the Notice arrived. Turns out they'd been expecting it pretty much all day. VERY helpful clerk and staff on this one. VERY helpful. The best way to appreciate this one is probably by our getting a certified copy of the one on record with the court. I've got the "original" around here, somewhere, but I'm thinking that with the "stamps" and all on it, it'll at least look like a Notice of Appeal! Harmon http://www.apfn.org/pdf/MSTAY-1.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mtro-1.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/mrehringtro-1.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/AFFIDHLT-1.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion03.pdf http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Opinion04.pdf Notation: for the following document Key to the appellate court opinions is the characterization that the claims made were "without authority," and that the claims have "no merit." While the rest of the court's discussion is interesting, this part of the opinion tells us everything we need to know. The appellate court went beyond addressing the issues raised and addressed the question asked, which is along the lines of, "How in the world can this be happening, legally speaking?" Since the essence of these claims comes straight out of the Constitution, the lesson is that the Constitution is "without authority," and that the Constitution has "no merit," in the "United States" "court" system. Said another way, the Constitution is not "admissible evidence of Law," and, that being the case, the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land. From that point of view, given that the "federal government" arises from private obligations, not the Constitution, it makes sense that the Constitution is completely irrelevant, and that is provides absolutely no limitations on the "federal government," whatsoever. THAT's how the "feds" do what they do, legally speaking. Thus, in sum, to solve any problem, it helps greatly to identify it correctly, first. Here, not only do we need to learn to distinguish between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government," but also we need to learn that there is presently no "constitutional Government" in operation, but only the "federal government." The cite to Devvy's web page that contains the indictment language is still a good link to that.   Since the Constitution was not "admissible evidence of Law" for this case, that got me started trying to find when it stopped being the Supreme Law of the Land. Right now, I'm satisfied that it had to have occurred prior to 1850. In the early 1850's, Lysander Spooner witnessed the "court's" giving the "jury" the instructions to follow the "law" given by the "court." This is a complete abrogation of the Law stated in Brailsford v. Georgia, meaning, telling us, giving us "notice," that the "United States District Court" in Massachusetts was no longer bound to the Constitution or to the prior opinions of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution, and the "constitutional Government" it created, got deep-sixed at or before those cases came on for trial in the early 1850's. Another interesting indicia of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" is the "popular vote" of 1824. Five Presidents, four of them for two terms each, were elected per Article II, section 1. That's nine elections before the thought ever existed of any "popular vote," a concept found nowhere in the Constitution for choosing a President. And, even with the 12th Amendment (1804), there were still 20 years before the "popular vote" made its entrance. How fitting is it that John Quincy Adams, the sixth President, won neither the "popular vote" nor the Electoral Vote? It definitely earmarks that event for our study. The legal reality of the non-existence of the "constitutional Government" just didn't sink in until I read the 7th Circuit's opinion in this case. Now, it's as clear as day. Since it took the padded 2x4 of the 7th Circuit to get me "over" that barrier, I don't realistically expect anything short of personal experience to persuade anyone else, either. But, then, there's always hope! To combine the attached notes with these, here's one perspective, with which I'll close this note. The State is the sine qua non regarding the "constitutional Government." Without States, there is no "constitutional Government." Starting with Article I, if there are no States, then there are no Representatives, for Representatives represent People in the States. And, if there are no States, then there are no Senators, for Senators represent the States, directly, in that legislative process. (You're right, of course, to look to the so-called 17th Amendment (1913). However, I've already traced the non-existence of the "constitutional Government back to 1850, so this particular "notice" to us, in 1913, that the States no longer exist, and, therefore, that the States have no more need of representation in Congress, is about 60 years "late.") The entire purpose of the Senate is to have the States, as such, participate in the legislative process. If there are no States, then not only is there no Congress, but also there is no need even for a Senate. Thus, where there are no States, there is no Congress. Continuing with Article II, where there are no States, there is no President. From where come the Electors? Right, the States. The Electors hold an Office in the "constitutional Government," which exists for the sole purpose of choosing the President. If there are no States, then there are no Electors. Where there are no Electors, there is no President. Thus, where there are no States, there is no President. Continuing with Article III, where there are no States, there are no Judges. From where come the Judges? Right, the President nominates and appoints, and the Senate gives Advice and Consent. Thus, where there is no President, there is no nomination or appointment, and where there is no Senate, there is no Advice or Consent. Thus, where there are no States, there are no Judges. In sum, where there are no States, there is no "constitutional Government," for not one Office can be filled. Thus, it behooves us to learn the difference between the "federal government" and the "constitutional Government," and, even more importantly, the present non-existence of the "constitutional Government." The "federal government" is the "government" "of the banks, by the banks, for the banks." For it to be curbed, we start by ceasing to "trade with the enemy." Harmon per the article above http://www.apfn.org/pdf/THlitovervw.pdf   Open Letter to President George W. Bush Re: Stay of Execution by Harmon L. Taylor http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OKC_execution.htm Download free Windows Media Player 7 CLICK HERE Oklahoma Cover-Up Part 1 (47 min, 22 sec)         http://www.apfn.org/movies/okc_1.wmv Oklahoma Cover-Up Part II (13 min, 26 sec)    http://www.apfn.org/movies/okc_2.wmv       WHO had access to the Murrah Building? Who were the Two Men Jane Graham saw? Click Here for pictures & clip

"There was a waving motion....like an earthquake...then seconds later an explosion came from BENEATH straight UP through the floor" according to Jane C, Graham, who was on the nineth floor of the Murrah Building at 9 am on April 19, 1995.
Video Affidavit of Murrah Federal Building Bombing witness/survivor Jane C. Graham:

FBI Still Keeping the Lid on Eyewitness Reports
http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/government/okc_secrets01-98.html

  See Pictures from film: No Large Crater - Debris out, rather than IN - Shaking BEFORE Explosion

                 There Was MORE Than One Bomb - A Classic Cover Up!

Download Acrobat Reader here

Refusal of Jane C Graham's (witness/survivor) Testimony to the Grand Jury
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/graham.pdf 

Although the FBI interviewed Graham, they never showed her any pictures or
brought her before a sketch artist. "They only wanted to know if I could
identify McVeigh or Nichols," she said. "I said it was neither of these two gentlemen.

The Oklahoma City Bombing- Were there additional explosive
charges and additional bombers?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

What Really Happened in the Oklahoma City Bombing?
Many Victims' Families Believe FBI Knew Bombing Was Being Planned;
http://www.comeandtakeit.com/okc1.html  

JOHN ASHCROFT AND THE OKC BOMBING
Devvy Kidd
February 8, 2001
The new Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has a reputation as being very religious with an abundance of personal integrity. Having said that, now that he is confirmed, I would ask you to join me in burying his office with a demand that he re-open the Oklahoma City bombing. Why? http://www.devvy.com/ashcroft_20010206.html

THE RYDER TRUCK IN THE SECRET ARMY COMPOUND. 

The Oklahoma City Bombing
Were there additional explosive
charges and additional bombers?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

The Aryan Republican Army, Elohim City, and the OKC Bombing
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ara_okc.htm  

Aryan Republican Army
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/criminals/aryan-republican-army/

Index for The John Doe Times Volumn 5
The Truth Shall Set You Free...or in this case hang your coconspirators....
 http://xld.com/jdt/jdindx5.htm

Volume 5, No. 1 - 16 March 1997
** DESPERATE FEDS SCREW UP AND INDICT CAROL HOWE.
** CAROL HOWE, POLITICAL PRISONER?
** FBI SNITCH RICHARD SCHRUM RAISES HIS WEASELY HEAD AGAIN
-- DOING THE BIDDING OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM?
** "I'M NOT KEEPING MY MOUTH SHUT ANY LONGER ABOUT OKLAHOMA CITY!"
** WHY THE KEHOE BOYS ARE ON THE RUN: THE MUELLER MURDERS
http://xld.com/jdt/jdindx5.htm

OK Bomb Articles On Konformist.com
Subject: Konformist: OK Bomb Articles On Konformist.com
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:28:48 -0000
From: "Robert Sterling" robalini@aol.com
Reply-To: konformist-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: konformist@yahoogroups.com
Please send as far and wide as possible.
Thanks,

Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com/
http://www.konformist.com/2001/okbomb-fbi.htm
http://www.konformist.com/2001/okbomb.htm
Jim Redden
pdxs@pop.ptld.qwest.net

NATION/SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TIME CNN IMPACT
WHO IS ROBERT JACQUES?
THE FBI WANTS TO TALK TO A MISSING ASSOCIATE OF MCVEIGH'S
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986048,00.html  

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT,
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mcveigh/index.html 

John Loeffler
Charles Key Interview on OKC Bombing
Tue Jul 3 15:57:21 2001

Charles Key Interview on OKC Bombing (Archived)

Steel on Steel Radio Program - Hosted by John Loeffler
6/02/2001
Do We REALLY Know What Happened in Oklahoma City? -- Will We Ever?
Guest: Charles Key / Host: John Loeffler

This is an excellent interview of former Oklahoma state representative
Charles Key by John Loeffler on his Steel on Steel program June 2.
It's archived in either RealAudio or MP3. John asks the important questions.

OKC - now who's the kook?
03/18/02
Larry Johnson former CIA agent just said on TV's FOXNEWS Monday at 7:18 CST that the FBI did not pursue any of the leads or ties in the OKC bombing to Muslim terrorists.
He admitted all the John Doe 2 sightings were good leads to a middle eastern person... the have now identified (or now admitted) that at least two of the people seen with McViegh were members of the Iraq Republican Guard...and now FBI agent Vogel who was in charge of the OKC investigation has said he feels "guilt ridden" because the if they had chased the leads they might have prevented September 11's attack. Vogel says he was told not to pursue it by higher level officials.

O.J. SIMPSON: DIVERSION FROM WACO/SUMMER OF 1993
O.J. Simpson was never indicted!! by Harmon L. Taylor, TX Attorney
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/OJ.htm

====================================

The Calgary Herald
FBI hid Oklahoma bombing files, court told
Sat Mar 13 01:41:12 2004

FBI hid Oklahoma bombing files, court told
Judge reviews allegations of tainted jurors

The Associated Press - Thursday, March 11, 2004
http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=9f6d9082-9f09-4a06-a085-a47137721f41 site down

Terry Nichols' attorneys say more than a dozen FBI documents that raise the possibility of additional accomplices in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing weren't turned over by state prosecutors or the federal government for Nichols' murder trial defence.

The documents, cited in a recent series of Associated Press stories, include two 1990s teletypes from then-FBI director Louis Freeh's office citing possible connections between Timothy McVeigh and a gang of white supremacist bank robbers, the lawyers said.

Nichols, in federal prison, began trial this month on Oklahoma state murder charges alleging he assisted McVeigh in building the deadly bomb.


The judge has said he will dismiss the charges with prejudice -- making it very hard for prosecutors to resurrect the case -- if Nichols' lawyers can prove documents that could have aided their defence were withheld.


Under a Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors and the government are obligated to turn over to defence lawyers all materials that could help clear a defendant, such as evidence that points to other suspects or casts doubt on prosecution witnesses.

Nichols' attorneys agreed to review the materials cited in the AP story and identify which they could not find among the massive files prosecutors and the government provided them. In all, they identified 13 FBI documents and a handful of other materials.

"To our knowledge, we have not received these documents from the state or federal government," lead attorney Brian Hermanson said Wednesday.

In addition, the lawyers said they did not receive any information from prosecutors concerning the FBI's unsuccessful efforts to get permission to interview McVeigh in 2001 to resolve lingering questions before his execution.

The prosecutor, Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes Lane, said, "Everything the federal government has provided to us has either been given or made available to the Nichols' defence team."

Nichols, 48, is serving a life prison sentence for the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people.

The eighth day of jury selection in Nichols' trial began Wednesday amid revelations that some prospective jurors said they would lie to be selected to possibly convict and sentence the bombing conspirator.

Judge Steven Taylor said a new line of questioning will be developed to address allegations by one prospective juror that others were willing to lie to get on the jury. "I'm going to deal with this," Taylor said.

The issue was revealed as the prospective juror said she overheard other possible panelists say they would say anything to get on the jury. The woman was retained on the panel.

"I'll do whatever it takes to get up there," she paraphrased one of them as saying. "I'm going to say what I can to get on the jury. My decision is already made."
© The Calgary Herald 2004

 

=================================

Re: OKC anniversary
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-11-05/discussion.cgi.66.html
=================================

OKC BOMBING: Congress left us high and dry, families say
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.5.html

Did Oklahoma City Bombers Have Help?
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/04-17-05.htm

Re: [OKC BOMBING] FBI acted slowly in tip
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.12.html

Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.13.html

INFO AND LINKS: OKC BOMBING
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.14.html

[OKC BOMBING] FBI acted slowly in tip on Nichols, bomb cache
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.37.html

URGENT PRESS RELEASE: Terry Nichols wants to talk...
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.38.html

OKC Bombing's 'Lost Information'
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.39.html

[OKC BOMBING] - FBI AGENT "JOHN DOE #2"
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/04-17-05.htm

RE: OKC BOMBING & FBI SA JAMES R. FINCHLEY
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.41.html

Nick Berg - 911 - OKC Bombing Connection
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.42.html

Oklahoma City bombing memorial - Cheney to speak
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.66.html

Two Ryder Trucks Used in OKC Bombing
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/discussion.cgi.67.html

RE: OKC BOMBING & JOHN DOE #2
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-17-05/04-17-05.htm

Amazing New Evidence - FBI Informant In OKC Bombing
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.52.html

FEDERAL MURDER INC. TIED TO OKC TERROR BOMBING
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.16.html

almost positive the OKC blast was a mini nuke
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-19-05/discussion.cgi.23.html

[OKC BOMBING] DREAM BUST OF THE CENTURY
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-17-05/discussion.cgi.63.html

It's only a drama. Padilla is an informant
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-04-05/discussion.cgi.26.html

PROOF: TIMOTHY McVEIGH died (Maybe) as a SOLDIER
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-09-05/discussion.cgi.1.html

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING: BASIC FACTS
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-23-05/discussion.cgi.82.html

ARE THESE THE REAL OKC BOMBERS
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.61.html

OKC Bombshell Implicates Feds In Murrah Blast
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-08-05/discussion.cgi.86.html

THE OKLAHOMA CITY "BOMBING" REALLY AN EMP EVENT
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-14-05/discussion.cgi.27.html

DID INHOFE KNEW OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN OKC BOMBING?
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-09-05/discussion.cgi.53.html

Nat'l Intel Director Candidate Covered up OKC Bombing
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-14-05/discussion.cgi.6.html

CALL FOR FOX NEWS CEO TO IMPROVE OKC BOMBING SPECIAL
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-17-05/discussion.cgi.12.html

OKC Bombing: A DAY OF TRUTH - TEN YEARS LATER
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-09-05/discussion.cgi.121.html

CHERTOFF CREATED TERROR PRETEXTS FOR US POLICE STATE
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.66.html

(Cont'd) CHERTOFF CREATED TERROR PRETEXTS
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.68.html

OSWALD AND DEALEY PLAZA VS. McVEIGH AND THE OKC BOMBING
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-19-05/discussion.cgi.69.html

Chandra Levy & OKC Bombing Connection?
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-14-05/discussion.cgi.30.html

NICK BERG + 911 + OKC BOMBING CONNECTION:
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-16-05/discussion.cgi.14.html

The OKC Bombing: A Day of Truth ~ Ten Years Later
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-09-05/discussion.cgi.52.html 

WING TV Exclusive: OKC Press Conference - 04-05-05
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-09-05/discussion.cgi.64.html 

Oklahoma City Murrah Building Bombing Evidence
OKC bombing speakers forum on April 20, 2005
Audios: http://www.911busters.com/OKCB/index.html 

Oklahoma City Bombing Questions - packrat@texas.net
http://www.stopcovertwar.com/McVeigh.html

Jayna Davis - From Oklahoma City to the Middle East
http://www.jaynadavis.com/story.html
http://www.jaynadavis.com/story-oklahomamag.html

The Oklahoma City Bombing - many unanswered questions
http://www.akdart.com/okc.html

9-11 Attack on America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm

Subscribe to apfn-1
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
"...a network of net workers..."

APFN Message Board

APFN/Ken Vardon
6630 West Cactus Road B107-760
Glendale, Arizona 85304
e-mail: mailto:apfn@apfn.org

You are visitor