"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/
The
Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing. While liberal news
outlets such as MSNBC were cynically exploiting the April 19 anniversary
of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by attempting to tie the terrorist
attack to the anti-government sentiments of the modern-day Tea Party
movement, investigative reporter Jayna Davis was setting the record
straight in an exclusive interview on the AIM radio show, Take AIM. The
Oklahoma City bombing was an Arab/Muslim terrorist attack on the United
States, she says. Davis, author of a blockbuster book on the
attack, The Third Terrorist, has examined and presented the
evidence showing that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was in fact a
front man for Middle Eastern terrorists. The third terrorist, in
addition to the two, McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who were convicted, was
an Arab. This was the mysterious "John Doe" who was never found.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-real-story-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/
Video: Brigadier General Ben Partin speaks about
Oklahoma City, Waco & Communism
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!"
You were told there was only ONE explosion to blow up the MURRAH BUILDING?
Listen to the News....again
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
WeAreChangeOklahoma - What did Sgt. Terrance Yeakey know?
[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
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
Videos: David Hammer Talks About McVeigh and
Government Prior Knowledge of OKC Bombing
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 50:59
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
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
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."
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.
"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/
Oklahoma City Bombing
RARE footage
Video: Brigadier General Ben Partin speaks
about Oklahoma City, Waco & Communism
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!"
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
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
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 1:47:58
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
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
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."
"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:
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.
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
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
site down
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
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
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.
