The Republic of Texas
Money of The Republic of Texas
Monday at the Gray's
Republic of Texas
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:08:39 PST
The greatest cover-up of the Clinton administration is its conspiracy with the United States Congress and the courts operating in Texas and the major news media to maintain complete silence about the success of the Texas independence movement. (see related story) The Republic of Texas has now gained trade and commerce recognition from over 140 nations. The Republic of Texas has proven that it is a nation of people who, under international law, are entitled to vote for government reform and to decide whether to stand as an independent nation free of the United States. This recognition stems from the attack on The Republic of Texas Embassy near Ft. Davis, Texas in May of 1997 after one of its embassy guards was attacked and captured by the local sheriff, Steve Bailey.
Subsequent offensive attacks by various law enforcement agencies and U.S. military forces against the Embassy resulted in an official international agreement exercised under authority of the Clinton administration and the Texas governor to remedy the captive-nation status of Texas and stop the attempts by the United States to keep Texas under an illegal annexation which was dissolved in 1861 by the People of Texas. A February 18, 1998 Registry of the nations willing to do business with independent Texas was filed for publication with the United Nations in connection with Texas' independence petition called The Texas Peace Initiative' pending before the United Nations. It has been conclusively shown that Texas has never been lawfully annexed into the United States but has been held as a captive territory under the war powers of the American Civil War.
It is believed by many that Texas' independence will have a profound, worldwide effect as Texas takes its place among the world's nations as the eleventh largest economy. The terms of The Republic of Texas' agreement with the United States have not been made public, and these terms have not been contested by the designated representative of the second party in the coalition government, Bob Bullock, President of the State of Texas Senate. Various beneficial effects should soon start to surface from the coalition government as The Republic of Texas starts assuming State of Texas and United States agency positions under coalition government.
"Texas--still a nation" is now being voiced by many who are demanding the end of the current out-of-control government which has undermined Christian values. Many feel that Texas' independence is the only cure left to bring Texas back to common sense, both in government and in the lives of many of the people now being destroyed by bureaucratic and judicial corruption.
UPDATES ON THIS:
Fri, 27 Mar 1998
Speaking of idiots like Stewart: The trial is on in Texas where Griesacker made his mark and got a whole bunch of people arrested right after he split. (This is the third time he pulled that stunt.) Here is the latest report on that trial. I've highlighted the part referring to Griesacker and his disappearing/reappearing warrants. In case you're unfamiliar with the whys and wherefores of this, here goes:
When the feds successfully "turn" a suspect into an informant, they hold his warrant over his head until they are satisfied with his "accomplishments". (Accomplishments means entrapping and thus criminalizing other federal "targets" like Robert Kelly.) During this time, the feds hide the warrant from NCIC so that the informant won't get picked up on a routine traffic stop. This is why I was unable to find a warrant on Griesacker on NCIC on March 14, 1998, but once we had successfully burned Griesacker and they wanted to extract him, they made the warrant "reappear" and he was picked up. Get it? It's pretty obvious from the Texas trial that Griesacker is being protected by the feds and testimony about him is being suppressed from the jury. Charles Stewart says I'm an agent provocateur and that Griesacker is a swell guy. Is Charles Stewart another Griesacker?
-- Carl F. Worden firstname.lastname@example.org
Day 12 of trial -- Wednesday March 25, 1998
The morning began with three opening statements from defense counsel, then proceeded with Ambassador Rick McLaren taking the stand as the first defense witness.
Ambassador McLaren captivated the courtroom the entire day with his explanation of the history of his involvement with the land fraud issues in Ft. Davis, the problems they were having with all levels of government there, then proceeded to make a thorough presentation of the historical documents which support the positions of The Republic of Texas. He and his counsel, Mr. Mills, are working very well together, especially when considering their inability to organize their exhibits and questioning until yesterday. Mr. Mills tried to visit with Ambassador McLaren Sunday, but was not permitted to do so. Rick has the recently filed a four-volume registry which contains all the critical documents proving the illegal annexation of Texas into the Union and the steps we've taken to assert our lawful independent standing, the eight volumes which contain the documentation filed the first year, and he has Birkheimer's work, Vattel's Law of Nations, and numerous law books stacked around him at the witness stand.
He and Mr. Mills have everything well organized for exhibit purposes, and have made many of them into slides which are shown on a rather large screen to the jurors.
Ambassador McLaren will continue presenting his evidence tomorrow, and will likely continue on Friday as well. After he's completed his testimony, he plans to call David J. Smith to the stand.
We're presenting a very educational, very strong case to the jury, and it is thrilling to observe Ambassador McLaren in action. If you would like to witness history in the making, the trial begins at 9:00 a.m. each morning and is taking place in A. Joe Fish's courtroom on the 15th floor of the united States Courthouse (Earl Cabell Building) at 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas.
Day 13 of trial--Thursday, March 26, 1998
Today was an incredible day, filled with lots of twists and turns and tricky issues. About thirty students from a government class observed the morning session, and got a real education.Yesterday morning, when Ambassador McLaren took the stand, his court-appointed attorney, Tom Mills, presented the terms under which Ambassador McLaren would testify, so that he would not lose his diplomatic immunity, and he placed into the record McLaren's diplomatic pouch, which stated that he is a foreign diplomat who is being held and tried by a foreign enemy government; that on continuing his testimony on war crimes and human rights violations being perpetrated by his captor, he explicitly states as public record that he claims no contractual relationship with his captors and that at all times he comes as a belligerent claimant, recognizing his higher oath as a diplomat to find wherever possible a peaceful resolution.
Because of the time required to read the pouch, the prosecution reserved the right to make a response until the next day (today). This morning, before the jury was called into the courtroom, the prosecution said that they had looked at the documents and decided that Ambassador McLaren can't put limits on his testimony; that he either testifies or doesn't. That he can't continue unless he waives his diplomatic immunity. Michael Uhl stated that they don't recognize Ambassador McLaren as an ambassador. Judge Fish agreed, so Ambassador McLaren said that he couldn't continue to testify because he could not risk saying he's not an ambassador, for The Republic's sake. If he were to waive his immunity, he would basically be saying that he isn't an ambassador. And were he to do that, The Republic of Texas would no longer exist. One of the four requirements of a nation is to have the ability to deal with other nations, and that can only be done through an ambassador. This threw a monkey wrench in the defense case, because the other Defendants have been planning to use Ambassador McLaren's testimony to a large extent in presenting their cases. David J. Smith testified all day, until the last hour of the day. No one who knows him will be surprised to learn that he did an excellent job in testifying.
He showed filmed footage of U.N. military activity on U.S. and Texas soil. He testified as to Ambassador McLaren's accuracy and sincerity in his endeavors to regain Texas' independence. Mr. Smith shared his belief that The Republic of Texas independence is very possibly the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. It is his opinion that the split in the movement was caused by people who had signed up for bank charters being misled by Darrell Franks and the C.D.T., and he is convinced that agents infiltrated The Republic to break it apart.
At the end of the day we heard from our second witness, Joel Dyer, who is an investigative journalist who looked into the Griesacker situation. Prosecutor Michael Uhl objected to almost every question that Mr. Mills posed to the witness regarding a report and statements made to him about arrest warrants which law enforcement had on record of Griesacker, but which suddenly disappeared when the journalist went to retrieve them. It seems that the government was going to do whatever it needed to do to keep the jury from hearing that testimony. So Mr. Mills requested the opportunity to question the witness outside the hearing of the jury, which was granted. That is when the witness' statements came out about warrants on Griesacker suddenly disappearing from the records. Then because McLaren would not continue to testify, Judge Fish was preparing to strike from the record the testimony that Ambassador McLaren had given the day before. Since his testimony would not be able to be cross-examined by the prosecution, it couldn't remain on record.
That then created a real danger of a mistrial being declared at that point in the trial. The tension had mounted because Ambassador McLaren was feeling he couldn't testify and the other defendants were depending on his testimony to a large extent for their defense. The issue of the U.S. not recognizing Ambassador McLaren as an ambassador because they didn't recognize The Republic of Texas then came up. Then it was brought out that under international law, a provisional government duly elected by the people has standing under international law, and that that government elected Ambassador McLaren to be an ambassador at large so he could communicate with the U.S. and other nations.
It wasn't necessary that the U.S. exchange ambassadors with The Republic of Texas for Ambassador McLaren to be The Republic of Texas' ambassador. Then the prosecution brought out a letter from the State Department which stated that the United States doesn't do business with The Republic of Texas. Ambassador McLaren said, essentially, "So what?" There are thirty countries that the U.S. doesn't do business with, but that doesn't mean that they're not countries. And that doesn't mean that there isn't some level of recognition; they just don't exchange ambassadors. Defendant Richard Kieninger then dissipated the tension by reminding the Mr. Fish that his country is at war with our country, and it serves the U.S. position to not recognize us. He stated that it isn't fair that they're conducting this trial, and again brought up the matter of jurisdiction.
Mr. Kieninger pointed out that Judge Fish is facing the same situation as between the northern and southern states some 130 years ago, and what he decides here could determine whether this war escalates into a violent one. He also reminded the court that all the pending court decisions and the Congressional decision relative to The Republic of Texas' sovereignty have been dumped into his lap, and Mr. Kieninger could empathize because the judge is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Mr. Kieninger urged him to let Congress decide, just as federal judge Bunton ruled. Finally, it was agreed that Ambassador McLaren could testify without immunity so long as his title as ambassador is retained. He pointed out that he wasn't looking for immunity from self-incrimination. Since the U.S. and The Republic of Texas under international law both recognize the common law, he still has the obligation to tell the truth. So McLaren will continue to testify in the morning.
Ambassador Rick McLaren,Republic of Texas
WORLD COURT TO HEAR CASE
Tue Jul 17 21:11:07 2001
Comments may be directed to Col. S.L. Hightower
REPUBLIC / STATE OF TEXAS
July 16, 2001
World Court to decide whether it will hear Texas Case on violations of the
Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS: Today the World Court received the final legal instrument for deciding whether there is any basis by which the Court can issue a temporary order.
For several weeks the United States has been at the heart of heated disputes for ignoring the High Courts temporary injunctions, all the while insisting that the World Court strengthen its stand on exacting compliance to the law.
The Court must now gather and review evidence and hear oral arguments to support the Courts jurisdiction involving a Texas case, which purports mass violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations by the United States.
This case has far-reaching implications. It is the first of its kind involving the United States where a perfected jurisdictional merger is established between a national court of the United States and the World Court. The United States has waived its jurisdiction of the case, in dispute a year earlier, to the world Court on June 18, 2000.
Texas, as Plaintiff in the case, claims standing under international law to bring this case before the World Court for breaches of a May 3, 1997 International Agreement that it has with the United States. This is to resolve the dispute involving outstanding issues of international law which have never been resolved regarding the original treaties of 1838 and 1845 with the United States and Texas reserved rights under those treaties.
Texas claims that the United States, through its breach of this International Agreement, has circumvented due process of international law and has destroyed its underlying purpose of the agreement. The United States is ignoring the agreement that Texas has the right to maintain its diplomatic functions, actions and operations through its mission, embassies, consulate, and ministries, until the political issues provided for in the international agreement are fully resolved.
The International Agreement was negotiated under and met the requirement necessary for the Texas Mission to gain its standing and rights under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. Accordingly, under US law, in force on May 3, 1997, at 22 USC 254b and 254d, the United States is now violating its own requirement. Texas has now brought this dispute before the World Court for settlement.
Republic of Texas Citizen
Citizens Rule book on the Web:
Citizen's Rule Book 44 pages
Download here: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf
American Patriot Friends Network
"...a network of net workers..."
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated on 12/27/10 10:40 PM