Published on 05-02-2015 by the American Herald
Report # 407B
On or about 05-02-2015, one of the Human Rights Defenders came across an article dated April 30th, 2015: LINK
It seems pretty harmless at first sight and it appears that Bit Coin is getting a little boost which is a good thing.
Then another article came up that was published on :LINK
“That bill [also referred to as AB-129]– as we’ve discussed previously — effectively makes it simpler for state residents to use alternative currencies by nullifying an old bill that deemed anything but the use of the United States dollar as legal.
These alternative currencies include but are not limited to Starbucks Stars, Amazon Coins, and yes, even bitcoin and other cryptographic currencies.”
Then another article was found that was published on May 6, 2014: LINK
The Big Picture Behind the News of China’s Bitcoin Bans
This is the most peculiar part of these articles: Look at the dates!
California must have had a crystal ball when it came to that legislation dealing with crypto currency. China bans bitcoin and a month and a half later, California passes it.
Then almost a year later, China and Manhattan Island go into partnership with Bitcoin. This miraculous event really benefits California in a big way or does it?
1: Why would Manhattan Island start backing Bitcoin?
2: How did California know Bitcoin was going to be backed by a Central Bank when in the article about China, the central bank there said it was not created by the central bank so therefore was not legal tender?
3: We know that Manhattan is a foreign country under the Charter of the Patroons, and that charter came from the Netherlands. Many people believe that Manhattan Island is a part of the United States and Manhattan Island was taken over by the British. However, the British Company that took over Manhattan Island from the Dutch Company was a franchise of the Dutch. Is Manhattan Island a part of the United States or is it the United States as opposed to one of the United States or these United States?
Here is a link to a book published in 1998 which is a book about the legal basis on the term Nonresident Alien which shows all of the cases and filings on the specific term:
Watch out though, you might be a terrorist if you read this book and start talking about it.
Here is the most disturbing question in this whole report:
4: Did Manhattan Island influence the passing of the state law in California or did it order the passing of the state law?
Either way, if there was an influence or order or any other connection, that would mean that California’s law was and still is a foreign law to California. That would mean that the residents of California are under foreign law and the Police are enforcing foreign law against California’s residents. If that is the case, is all law in California foreign law to its residents and to U.S. citizens or is it? If someone were a state citizen and not a U.S. citizen, would the state statutes be considered foreign to the state citizen? According to the information in the book, the California state statutes and every other state statutes would be foreign to the state citizens if the statutes were passed under the dictatorial influence of a foreign power ie….using the foreign powers currency. Going a little further in this line of thinking, this situation would also mean that U.S. citizens would be foreign to the states of the union according to the book above, which would explain why the Bill of Rights would not apply and federal restrictions over U.S. citizens would also not apply in any court.
If the courts were enforcing foreign law, this would make the courts foreign to the states wherein they do business.
Now, here are some other more disturbing questions:
5: How can a president claim to be a president of the United States and also a president of the United States of America at the same time? If the states of the union are foreign to the United States with respect to private international law.
6: How can the people vote for a foreign president if they domicile within one of the states of the union?
7: If that is the case, why is the commander in chiefs flag in a state and county court room and in each state capital building?
8: Why would the states pass foreign law?
Now this line of thinking would explain this issue: LINK
West Baltimore offers vivid reminder of failed mass incarceration policy.
The legal implications of this line of questioning and thinking are astronomical and do boggle the mind.