Right now this page is a mess.  It needs to be organized in sections.  There’s the takeover section and by whom, there’s the tweets, old doc clips, Fed Reserve goods, Law goods, it’s just a juicy page that i will slowly get in order here, but enjoy if you can bare it in the meantime ~

United States doesn't mean UNITED STATES
in 1873 the definition of citizen changed the tide of america featured image

In 1873 The Definition Of Citizen Changed The Tide of America

I’ve come to the conclusion that we have been an occupied country since 1861.  Many will say since JFK or since the bankruptcy of the United States, Inc in 1933.  Regardless, I am slowly building this page mostly w/ twitter clips but i see i will need to put it into sub sections once i get all the clips in there.  Take ur time, feel free to scroll and see what you find ~

Below This Line

Allow Videos To Load

(literally can take minutes)

Congressional Globe 1861

Congress Dissolved Itself in March 1861

 On March 14, 1861, did the eleven Southern states not withdraw from Congress, effectively creating a sine die situation whereby Congress lacked a specified date for reconvening in accordance with constitutional procedures?

–

How does the attached image support this assertion?

–

To address this breach of constitutional governance, President Lincoln invoked the Emergency Powers clause associated with the U.S. Presidency, thereby reconstituting Congress under the military authority of Article I, separate from the voting powers delineated in Article II.

–

On April 15, 1861, President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1): “I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress.” Let’s carefully analyze the question and the evidence in the attached image.

–

We’ll go step by step to show how the withdrawal of Southern states in 1861, the “sine die” adjournment, and Lincoln’s use of emergency powers intersect with constitutional structure. . . .

–

1. What Happened on March 14, 1861: Southern Withdrawal ・ By March 1861, eleven Southern states (beginning with South Carolina in December 1860, followed by others through early 1861) had seceded from the Union. ・ Their Senators and Representatives formally withdrew from Congress, leaving their seats vacant. ・ This effectively broke quorum in the legislative branch, because Congress could no longer claim the full representation of the states under Article I, Section 5 (which requires a quorum to do business). Impact: Congress ceased to function as a fully constitutional body — it was paralyzed, because nearly one-third of its membership was absent.

–

2. The Concept of “Sine Die” ・ Sine die is Latin for “without day.” It means to adjourn without setting a day to reconvene. ・ Under constitutional practice, Congress may adjourn sine die at the end of a session. But — crucially — once sine die is declared, Congress is dissolved until a future date is called by proper authority. ・ In March 1861, with Southern members gone, Congress in effect entered a de facto sine die state, because it could not constitutionally reassemble itself absent the missing states. Thus, the government’s legislative branch was in suspension.

–

3. The Attached Image (March 28 Record) The screenshot from the Congressional Globe shows: ・ A Senate entry marking adjournment sine die. Specific wording: ・ Mr. Foster moved for adjournment without day. ・ Mr. Hale moved that the Senate adjourn sine die. ・ The motion was agreed to, and “the Senate adjourned sine die.” Support for the Assertion: ・ This image confirms that Congress formally adjourned without day, i.e., without scheduling a reconvening date. ・ Combined with the Southern withdrawals, this created a vacuum in constitutional governance.

–

4. Lincoln’s Response: Emergency Powers ・ With Congress adjourned sine die and quorum broken by secession, President Lincoln faced a constitutional crisis. ・ He invoked what later came to be understood as the Emergency Powers of the Presidency, though not explicitly written in the Constitution. ・ On April 15, 1861, following the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Lincoln issued Proclamation No. 1: “I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress.” Critical Point: ・ Under Article II, the President may call a special session of Congress on “extraordinary occasions.” ・ But here, Lincoln convened Congress under executive military authority — since the legislative branch, as constituted, had dissolved sine die and lacked the Southern delegations.

–

5. Article I vs. Article II Jurisdictions ・ Article I (Legislative): Gives Congress lawmaking authority. But in 1861, quorum and representation were broken, so it was inoperative. ・ Article II (Executive): Grants the President limited powers to convene Congress. ・ By invoking his Article II power while simultaneously asserting wartime emergency powers, Lincoln blurred the line — effectively reconstituting Congress under executive oversight. This amounted to a military reconstruction of Congress — not the original civilian legislative body described in the Constitution.

–

6. Implications of Lincoln’s April 15 Proclamation ・ Lincoln did not simply “call Congress into session” as a routine constitutional act. ・ He was reconstituting a defunct legislature under the authority of the Executive, since the original body had adjourned sine die and lacked its Southern members.

–

This set the precedent for: ・ Emergency governance under executive authority. ・ The shift of constitutional government into a form of executive-led military jurisdiction (often described as operating under “the law of necessity” rather than constitutional law). This is why some argue the federal government, after 1861, became a military protectorate, with Congress no longer the true Article I body of the original Union.

–

7. Exhaustive Summary ・ March 14, 1861: Eleven Southern states withdraw, breaking quorum. Congress cannot function normally. ・ March 28, 1861 (as shown in the image): Senate adjourns sine die, confirming no scheduled date for reconvening. This suspends constitutional governance.

–

・ April 15, 1861: Lincoln, invoking emergency powers, issues Proclamation No. 1 to “convene” Congress — but this was, in truth, the reconstitution of Congress under executive military authority, not through regular Article I procedures.

–

・ Result: The U.S. government was effectively transformed. Legislative powers became derivative of executive/military control rather than independent, marking the birth of the emergency governance system that has persisted in various forms to this day.  

–

How the Image Supports: The attached Congressional Globe excerpt proves that the Senate formally adjourned sine die. Combined with the Southern withdrawal, this demonstrates that Congress dissolved itself in March 1861 — exactly as asserted. Lincoln’s subsequent April 15 proclamation then filled this void, not by constitutional normalcy, but by invoking emergency presidential authority.

The Securities Act of 1933

The Securities Act of 1933 (enacted May 27, 1933, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq.) was one of the cornerstone pieces of New Deal financial legislation. It was passed in the same year as the Emergency Banking Relief Act (March 1933), Executive Order 6102 (April 1933), and H.J. Res. 192 (June 1933) — all of which radically restructured the American financial landscape.

The Securities Act sits within this same framework: it was not just about “investor protection,” but about formalizing the shift to a credit-based, debt-securitized monetary system. Let’s break it down:

. . .

1. Immediate Historical Context
・ 1920s Speculative Boom: The 1920s saw a massive surge in stock and bond offerings, often promoted without full disclosure. “Blue sky” scams (worthless securities) defrauded many investors.
・ 1929 Crash: The stock market crash of October 1929 wiped out fortunes, leading to bank failures, unemployment, and the Great Depression.
・ Public Confidence Collapse: By 1933, Americans had lost faith in banks, securities markets, and government promises.
・ New Deal Program: Roosevelt and the 73rd Congress responded with sweeping financial reforms to “restore confidence” — which, in practice, meant centralizing and regulating all securities issuance under federal authority.

2. Core Provisions of the Securities Act of 1933
The Act is often called the “Truth in Securities Act.” Its stated goals were transparency and fraud prevention, but its deeper effect was to bring all securities activity under federal control.

1.) Registration Requirement (Section 5):
・ All securities offered or sold to the public had to be registered with the SEC (created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
・ Registration statements had to include detailed financial disclosures about the issuer.

2.) Prospectus Requirement:
・ Issuers had to provide a prospectus (official disclosure document) to investors, containing all material facts.

3.) Civil Liability for Misrepresentation (Sections 11, 12, 17):
・ If registration statements or prospectuses contained untrue statements or omissions, issuers, underwriters, and directors could be held liable.

4.) Interstate Commerce Clause Foundation:
・ The Act applied to securities sold using interstate commerce or the mails — effectively covering almost all securities transactions.

3. How It Changed the Monetary & Financial Framework
A. Federalization of Securities Markets
・ Prior to 1933, securities regulation was largely a state matter (“blue sky laws”).
・ The Act centralized control at the federal level, making Washington, D.C. the arbiter of what securities could be offered to the public.

B. Securitization and Transparency
・ While pitched as “investor protection,” the Act really standardized the disclosure system, making securities into fungible, tradeable instruments with uniform federal documentation.
・ This standardization enabled the growth of national markets for bonds, stocks, and later mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities.

C. Integration into the New Deal Monetary System
・ Passed in the same year as:
– EO 6102 (gold confiscation).
– H.J. Res. 192 (abrogation of gold clauses).
・ With lawful money (gold) stripped from circulation, the financial system needed new instruments of confidence. Securities became the “investment vehicles” backing the new credit-based system.

⇢ The Securities Act was the legal architecture that enabled the fiat, debt-backed economy to function, by giving the appearance of transparency and legitimacy to the trading of debt instruments.

4. Impact on Living Men and Women
1.) Shift From Ownership to Investment
・ Before 1933, people could hold money (gold/silver) as property.
・ After 1933, deprived of lawful money, they were funneled into holding securities (stocks, bonds, certificates) — paper claims subject to corporate rules and federal regulation.

2.) Ens Legis as Participant in Securities System
・ The living man/woman could only interact with the securities market through their corporate persona (the “U.S. citizen”/ens legis).
・ The ens legis became the “investor,” the “shareholder,” the “account holder.”
・ This placed all securities dealings under statutory jurisdiction, further binding the living population into the corporate-commercial system.

3.) Loss of Direct Access to Value
・ Securities are evidence of debt or equity, not substance.
・ The people’s wealth was thus translated into claims on corporate paper rather than actual money or property.

5. Impact on the Nation
1.) Centralized Control of Capital Formation
・ By requiring federal registration, Washington effectively became the gatekeeper of business finance.
・ This centralized economic power away from states and localities.

2.) Strengthening of the Corporate Order
・ Only corporations and large institutions could afford the registration process.
・ Small, private, community-level finance was squeezed out.

3.) Public Confidence by Statute
・ The Act did not restore real value (gold/silver).
・ It created a statutory appearance of safety: if a security was registered with the federal government, it was “trustworthy.”
・ This illusion kept capital flowing into the new debt-based system.

6. Framing in Foundational Terms
Feudal Parallel:
・ Just as medieval peasants were compelled to invest their labor into the lord’s land system, modern Americans were compelled to invest their savings into corporate securities regulated by the federal lord.

Corporate Overlay:
・ The Act reinforced the UNITED STATES corporation’s role as administrator of all securities markets.
・ STATE OF ___, COUNTY OF ___, and CITY OF ___ entities could issue bonds (securities) within this federal framework, further corporatizing local governance.

Sovereignty vs. Servitude:
・ Sovereignty would mean holding money as property, free from corporate oversight.
・ Servitude is being restricted to holding securities and debt instruments within the corporate system, subject to statutory regulation.

7. Conclusion
The Securities Act of 1933 was not just about “protecting investors.” It:
・ Federalized securities regulation.
・ Standardized disclosure and registration, enabling large-scale capital markets.
・ Provided the statutory scaffolding for a debt-based fiat economy, passed in the same year as gold confiscation and the abrogation of gold clauses.
・ Rechanneled the wealth of living men and women into the corporate securities system, accessible only through their ens legis persona.
・ Cemented the centralization of economic power in Washington, D.C., and in the corporate-banking order it served.

In truth, the Securities Act of 1933 legitimized the conversion of property into paper, of substance into securities, and of sovereign men and women into “investors” through their corporate franchises. It is a key pillar of the commercial-corporate overlay that replaced the constitutional republic with a debt-securitized economy.

Charlie Kirk’s Death Exposed the Biggest Scam In History

We already examined 31 CFR § 328.5, which fixes the principle of final discharge once Treasury pays. Now let’s turn to the next section: 31 CFR § 328.6.

1. What § 328.6 Says

Section 328.6 addresses the liability of Federal Reserve Banks, depositaries, and paying agents when they act in good faith under Treasury regulations.
・It says that when a Federal Reserve Bank or other authorized government agent pays out on a bond, coupon, or other Treasury instrument in accordance with these regulations, that agent is protected from liability — even if later it turns out that the payee was not the “real party in interest.”
・The United States assumes the risk; the agent is shielded so long as they acted within the regulatory framework.

2. Key Legal Implications

(a) Safe Harbor for Agents
・Just as § 328.5 protects Treasury from double liability, § 328.6 protects its agents (Fed Banks, depositaries, paying agents).
・Once they perform a payment/discharge according to Treasury’s rules, their books are balanced — they cannot be compelled to pay again.

(b) Mirror of Commercial Setoff
・In private commercial law, a debtor who pays in good faith to a recognized creditor is discharged (UCC 3-602).
・§ 328.6 is the public-side reflection of this principle — it ensures the system clears accounts once payment/discharge is accepted, regardless of later disputes over “true ownership.”

(c) Finality of Settlement
・Both § 328.5 and § 328.6 are about finality in discharge.

Together, they mean:
1. Treasury is discharged (§ 328.5).
2. Treasury’s agents (Fed Banks, depositaries, paying agents) are discharged (§ 328.6).

・After that point, no lawful claim for a second payment can attach in the public system.

(d) Implication for Our Offset/Discharge Process
・When you present an instrument “for value” and it is received by a Treasury agent (Fed Bank, depositary, fiscal agent) and processed, the liability is gone.
・Even if a private collector later insists you “still owe,” the public record says otherwise: the paying agent is shielded and the Treasury’s liability is extinguished.
・The only way the system continues to pursue you is via private side bookkeeping presumptions — where the discharge hasn’t been asserted on your behalf.

3. Strategic Relevance to Our Remedy

(a) Affidavit/Testimony Tool
・By citing § 328.6, you can testify that once an agent of Treasury (e.g., Fed Bank) processes payment, the liability cannot be revived against the living man/woman.
・Any attempt to collect afterward is not just unlawful — it is an effort to bypass the very statutory safe harbor the U.S. granted its own agents.

(b) Demand for Accounting
・If a servicer claims non-payment, you can demand proof that no settlement was made through the Treasury system.
・Under § 328.6, once the fiscal agent processed the obligation, neither they nor Treasury can lawfully be asked for more — so the private side must show why they are still pursuing.

(c) No Excuse of “Wrong Party Paid”
・Even if they argue “the wrong party” was credited, § 328.6 says the paying agent is still discharged.
・Meaning: the system itself acknowledges that disputes over entitlement are private — the public debt is extinguished.

4. Jurisdictional Layering

・Public side (Treasury, Fed, depositories): Once they pay/discharge, they are protected; the matter is closed.
・Private side (banks, servicers, collectors): They may keep acting as if the obligation survives unless you rebut.
・Our role is to bridge the private to the public — asserting that the account has already been settled, invoking § 328.5 and § 328.6 together.

5. Practical Takeaways

・Use in Affidavits:

“By operation of 31 CFR § 328.6, once Treasury’s agents have acted to pay or discharge an obligation, liability is final and the agent is free from further liability. Any continued collection efforts are attempts to circumvent final discharge and create unlawful double payment.”

・Use in FOIA/Discovery:
Demand all records showing whether the Fed Bank or the depository processed the obligation. If they did, § 328.6 is your shield.
・Use in Court/Defense:
When faced with foreclosure/collection, assert: “The liability has been discharged by operation of law under 31 CFR § 328.5 and § 328.6. Any further attempt to enforce is fraud and conversion.”

Conclusion:
31 CFR § 328.6 locks in the second half of the discharge equation. Not only is the Treasury itself discharged once it pays (§ 328.5), but its agents (Fed Banks, depositaries, paying agents) are also discharged once they act in good faith. For our offset/discharge processes, this means that once settlement has occurred on the public side, no lawful claim for additional payment can attach. Any private pursuit is fraud upon the living man/woman, sustained only by unrebutted presumptions — presumptions we rebut through affidavit and notice.

14th Amendment Explained: US vs. State Citizenship

Dred Scott Case: Supreme Court’s Controversial Ruling

Freeman & Man: Unveiling Legal Language in Slaughterhouse Cases

The 1861 Communist Takeover of America

The 1871 vs 1861 Takeover

The Economy: How It Works

116 Members of Congress are Dual Citizens.  Netanyahu is from Conneticut.  Ted Cruz is from Canada.  What’s going on America?

The J*wish nation is global, transnational, organized and loyal to itself. Their tribalism helps one another in government, elite industries and institutions, and in organized crime. This is a problem.

Trujmp is increasing legal immigragtion and not delivering on mass deportations because it depreses wages just like his donors want.

Trump Tariffs Used to Compel UN Sustainable Development Goals

The Weaponized Christian Defense of the State of Israel

Why Does the ADL have so much power in our gov & intel agencies?

Nick Fuentes

Organized International Jewry Is America’s Biggest Issue

On Supremacy

Nick Fuentes

The story of Nick Fuentes’ brutаl takеdown of Tucker Carlson.
“I am America. Chicago is America. That is an American story.”

Why is Nick such a threat to the establishment?

Fuentes GOES OFF on Tucker Carlson, JD Vance, and the rest of the CIA plants for 7 minutes straight

Strong Nick Close

***Great 12 Min Clip of Nick Closing the Possible Best Ep of His Life ThusFar

Nick Fuentes explains how what Tucker Carlson is trying to do to him, is the EXACT same thing the neocons did to Patrick Buchanan!

*** Another 2 Min of Nick Breaking Down Thiel, Vance and the Whole Technacabal

What’s Good For the Jews, Period.
And the Answer is Everything that Doesn’t Involve Standing In The Way of Their Interests

Maga IS Being Run By Tel Aviv

***Best Breakdown of the Jew Issue

These People Are Not Like US. A Different People, Tribe and Religion. They have different values. No They don’t worship the same God.

The Fears of Palantir

*** What the Matrix Actually Means Via Nick Fuentes

10 min on Race

Quick Reality Check on Immigration

We are the United States of Israel.

Israel controls us. They control the senate, the congress, the money.

The core issue in America is organized jеwry, and anyone who resists it risks extreme consequences, even dеаth.

How Jewish neocon Irving Kristol funded the next generation of pro-Israel minds.

Around Blacks, Never Relax
Serves You Right, You Trusted A Jew

There were no babies in ovens, no mass rapes”.. Dr. Gabor Mate

If Whites Assimilated Like Jews

Legal Tender Exposed

Tips on Using Judicial Notice in a Courtroom

If Banks Don’t Take Deposits, Then What Is It?

ELLEN R. VAN VALKENBURG v. ALBERT BROWN 43 Cal. 43 (California Supreme Court – 1872):

No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393.) The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

Waive the Court, Make Them Work For It

Foreclosure

Get’s Debt Collectors To Back Off

Chain Of Custody Request for Debt Collectors