CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦
Open in Telegram
Remember, this is more than just a financial opportunity. This is a movement, a reclaiming of what is rightfully ours. Together, we will overcome any obstacle, defy the odds, and rise as victors. Send me an email via: ChristopherAHauser@protonmail.com
Show more📈 Analytical overview of Telegram channel CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦
Channel CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦 (@christopherhauser1) in the English language segment is an active participant. Currently, the community unites 111 471 subscribers, ranking 1 159 in the Education category and 200 in the USA region.
📊 Audience metrics and dynamics
Since its creation on невідомо, the project has demonstrated rapid growth, gathering an audience of 111 471 subscribers.
According to the latest data from 18 July, 2026, the channel demonstrates stable activity. Although there has been a change in the number of participants by -2 537 over the last 30 days and by -2 095 over the last 24 hours, overall reach remains high.
- Verification status: Not verified
- Engagement rate (ER): The average audience engagement rate is 20.62%. Within the first 24 hours after publication, content typically collects 8.58% reactions from the total number of subscribers.
- Post reach: On average, each post receives 23 008 views. Within the first day, a publication typically gains 9 580 views.
- Reactions and interaction: The audience actively supports content: the average number of reactions per post is 0.
- Thematic interests: Content is focused on key topics such as debt, property, exclusion, loan, irs.
📝 Description and content policy
The author describes the resource as a platform for expressing subjective opinions:
“Remember, this is more than just a financial opportunity. This is a movement, a reclaiming of what is rightfully ours. Together, we will overcome any obstacle, defy the odds, and rise as victors.
Send me an email via: ChristopherAHauser@protonmail.c...”
Thanks to the high frequency of updates (latest data received on 19 July, 2026), the channel maintains relevance and a high level of publication reach. Analytics show that the audience actively interacts with content, making it an important point of influence in the Education category.
111 471
Subscribers
-2 09524 hours
+3 2687 days
-2 53730 days
Data loading in progress...
Similar Channels
No data
Any problems? Please refresh the page or contact our support manager.
Tags Cloud
Incoming and Outgoing Mentions
---
---
---
---
---
---
Attracting Subscribers
July '26
July '26
+25 619
in 1 channels
June '26
+30 925
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '26
+23 342
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '26
+24 688
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '26
+37 688
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '26
+34 687
in 0 channels
Get PRO
January '26
+21 286
in 0 channels
Get PRO
December '25
+27 312
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '25
+16 764
in 0 channels
Get PRO
October '25
+13 944
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '25
+81 221
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '25
+42 905
in 1 channels
Get PRO
July '25
+35 838
in 1 channels
Get PRO
June '25
+38 605
in 1 channels
Get PRO
May '25
+97 581
in 2 channels
| Date | Subscriber Growth | Mentions | Channels | |
| 19 July | 0 | |||
| 18 July | 0 | |||
| 17 July | 0 | |||
| 16 July | 0 | |||
| 15 July | 0 | |||
| 14 July | 0 | |||
| 13 July | 0 | |||
| 12 July | +9 392 | |||
| 11 July | 0 | |||
| 10 July | 0 | |||
| 09 July | 0 | |||
| 08 July | 0 | |||
| 07 July | 0 | |||
| 06 July | 0 | |||
| 05 July | +9 877 | |||
| 04 July | 0 | |||
| 03 July | 0 | |||
| 02 July | +6 350 | |||
| 01 July | 0 |
Channel Posts
| 2 |  No text... | 121 |
| 3 | LEGAL TENDER DEFINED
The primary basis for counterclaims is that all commercial instruments such as promissory notes, credit agreements, bills of exchange and checks are defined as legal tender, or money, by the statutes such as 12 USC 1813(l)(1), UCC §1-201(24), §3-104, §8-102(9), §§9-102(9), (11), (12)(B), (49), (64).
Legal tender under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), Section 1-201(24) (Official Comment); “The referenced Official Comment notes that the definition of money is not limited to legal tender under the U.C.C. The test adopted is that of sanction of government, whether by authorization before issue or adoption afterward, which recognizes the circulating medium as a part of the official currency of that government. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected.”
In light of the holding of Guaranty Trust Company vs. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939), a Federal US court of appeals ruled on Title 31 USC 5118. As of October 27, 1977, legal tender for discharge of debt is no longer required. That is because legal tender is not in circulation at par with promises to pay credit. Requirement of repayment of debt is against Public Policy, since legal tender was not loaned [nor in circulation] they can not demand payment in any [particular] form of coin or currency or legal tender and repayment [or payment] need only be made in equivalent kind; A negotiable instrument.
HJR-192, Public Law 73-10 and Title 31 USC 5118 prohibits Banks/creditors from demanding any specific specie of payment. All Banks must process lawful United States currency. Failure to do so is “interference with commerce”, a felony under the RICO ACT, 18 USC 1951. If you believe you have a lawful reason to “Dishonor” this negotiable instrument you must return it to the Agent above with lawful reason(s) fully stated and cited, sworn under your unlimited liability. Failure to provide lawful reason(s), or to misdirect this instrument, is grounds for a complaint to the FTC under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), 15 USC 1692a1. It is your duty to honor this instrument for payment, to know, abide by and operate under the law. 18 USC 8 applies. Commercial instruments are legal tender for the payment of debt in accordance with 31 USC 5118 and other statutes/code. Failure to process and credit the intended account will result in a request of the Postal Inspectors office [to investigate and audit the accounts balance sheet,? Optional] and file IRS Form 3949A Information referral to the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) of the IRS.
The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) defines a negotiable instrument as an unconditioned writing that promises or orders the payment of a fixed amount of money. To be considered negotiable an instrument must meet the requirements stated in Article 3.
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
(a)"negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money
(b) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.
FRN's WORTHLESS
The Federal Reserve Bank in its booklet; MODERN MONEY MECHANICS page 3, states; “In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries.”
The “giving a (federal reserve) note does not constitute payment.” See Echart v Commissioners C.C.A., 42 Fd2d 158.
The use of a (federal reserve) 'Note' is only a promise to pay. See Fidelity Savings v Grimes, 131 P2d 894.
Legal Tender (federal reserve) Notes are not good and lawful money of the United States. See Rains v State, 226 S.W. 189.
That (federal reserve) 'Notes do not operate as payment in the absences of an agreement that they shall constitute payment.' See Blachshear Mfg. Co. v Harrell, 2 S.E. 2d 766.
“Federal Reserve Notes are valueless. “ See IRS Codes Section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.). | 151 |
| 4 | “The Official State Office Known As “PERSON”
This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.
The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.
One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:
(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.
NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …
Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.
So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws? | 111 |
| 5 | LEGAL TENDER DEFINED
The primary basis for counterclaims is that all commercial instruments such as promissory notes, credit agreements, bills of exchange and checks are defined as legal tender, or money, by the statutes such as 12 USC 1813(l)(1), UCC §1-201(24), §3-104, §8-102(9), §§9-102(9), (11), (12)(B), (49), (64).
Legal tender under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), Section 1-201(24) (Official Comment); “The referenced Official Comment notes that the definition of money is not limited to legal tender under the U.C.C. The test adopted is that of sanction of government, whether by authorization before issue or adoption afterward, which recognizes the circulating medium as a part of the official currency of that government. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected.”
In light of the holding of Guaranty Trust Company vs. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939), a Federal US court of appeals ruled on Title 31 USC 5118. As of October 27, 1977, legal tender for discharge of debt is no longer required. That is because legal tender is not in circulation at par with promises to pay credit. Requirement of repayment of debt is against Public Policy, since legal tender was not loaned [nor in circulation] they can not demand payment in any [particular] form of coin or currency or legal tender and repayment [or payment] need only be made in equivalent kind; A negotiable instrument.
HJR-192, Public Law 73-10 and Title 31 USC 5118 prohibits Banks/creditors from demanding any specific specie of payment. All Banks must process lawful United States currency. Failure to do so is “interference with commerce”, a felony under the RICO ACT, 18 USC 1951. If you believe you have a lawful reason to “Dishonor” this negotiable instrument you must return it to the Agent above with lawful reason(s) fully stated and cited, sworn under your unlimited liability. Failure to provide lawful reason(s), or to misdirect this instrument, is grounds for a complaint to the FTC under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), 15 USC 1692a1. It is your duty to honor this instrument for payment, to know, abide by and operate under the law. 18 USC 8 applies. Commercial instruments are legal tender for the payment of debt in accordance with 31 USC 5118 and other statutes/code. Failure to process and credit the intended account will result in a request of the Postal Inspectors office [to investigate and audit the accounts balance sheet,? Optional] and file IRS Form 3949A Information referral to the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) of the IRS.
The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) defines a negotiable instrument as an unconditioned writing that promises or orders the payment of a fixed amount of money. To be considered negotiable an instrument must meet the requirements stated in Article 3.
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
(a)"negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money
(b) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.
FRN's WORTHLESS
The Federal Reserve Bank in its booklet; MODERN MONEY MECHANICS page 3, states; “In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries.”
The “giving a (federal reserve) note does not constitute payment.” See Echart v Commissioners C.C.A., 42 Fd2d 158.
The use of a (federal reserve) 'Note' is only a promise to pay. See Fidelity Savings v Grimes, 131 P2d 894.
Legal Tender (federal reserve) Notes are not good and lawful money of the United States. See Rains v State, 226 S.W. 189.
That (federal reserve) 'Notes do not operate as payment in the absences of an agreement that they shall constitute payment.' See Blachshear Mfg. Co. v Harrell, 2 S.E. 2d 766.
“Federal Reserve Notes are valueless. “ See IRS Codes Section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.).
UNITED STATES rules and regulations only apply to “PERSONS”! | 88 |
| 6 | Property taxes are illegal according to the supreme court the case that releases us from property taxes is American Bank and Trust Company v Dallas County
463 us 855 1983
In texas, a TX tax assessor attempted to tax on the American Bank and Trust Company Assests that included united states obligations Supreme Court Rules according to 31 usc 3124 that no tax of any kind if the assessor had to consider obligations of the united states Either directly or indirectly Which is where the rubber meets the road For property tax assessors to determine property taxes
The tax assessor must look to comparable sales in the area of the property the assessor seeks to assess a tax However, since there is no gold or silver coin in circulation All sales transactions are made with federal reserve notes So the tax assessor has to look indirectly To an obligation of the United States To assesss a property tax against my property This operates in direct violation of 31 USC 3124 And runs contrary to 463 us 855 American bank and trust
The US has passed certain laws in the past That has put the states between a rock and a hard place In reference to debt payments owed to the State Constitution of the United States Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 Clearly states no state can make any payable for a debt other than gold and silver coin Congress has passed laws that have removed gold and silver Coin from circulation
However, the Consitution – one of the founding documents of this Country, of this Republic – Has not been changed at all At this current date the federal reserve note is listed as an obligation of the United States @18 USC 8 Federal reserve notes are not backed by anything As their fair values goes changes by the second One of the former heads of the Federal Reserve Compares taking a federal reserve compares Taking a federal reserve as payment is like making a wager We are wagering that when we exchange The federal reserve note I have received That whomever I want to take it will even accept it Or recognize the same value as I did when I received it Of course as we know, if we do take the federal reserve note And keep it for a few years The exchange value will change, usually going down due to inflations, The IRS, and thus the United States, is always taxed on GAIN Well the property tax assessors do too However, a gain to be taxed by the IRS requires a transaction At which an actual profit is made And we pay tax on the profit However with the assessor, the assessor assess taxes based on what the Assessor THINKS the property targeted for a tax is worth No matter that no transaction transpired and no actual gain on the property The assessor bases the “tax” on “perceived gains” on “other” transactions So, when we boil down the property tax system Goes up to inflation of a money of exchange that has no uniform value Even though there has not been any actual transaction To produce some gain This country used to fight and go to war about “No taxation without Representation” Well: Welcome to the new age – it’s taxation with transaction | 87 |
| 7 | Remember Officer, you may ask for my ID. I may tell you no. Demanding my ID, simply because it is department policy to identify is not only is a violation of my 4th Ammendment Rights and upheld multiple times by Supreme Court. It is also a Federal Crime. Carries up to 1 year imprisonment.
The FELONY crime you are committing, is Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
Deprivation of rights under color of law occurs when someone misuses power granted by a government position to violate a person's federally protected rights. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, this is a federal crime. It requires that the perpetrator acted under the guise of legal authority and willfully stripped someone of their rights.
Officer and this is for my friends in Blue. Next time someone refuses ID. You don't have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Just get in your car and leave. There are plenty of people wanting to Constitutionally trap you. They get a big pay-day, that may only cost them a weekend in jail. If they are really lucky you left a bruise or worse. If you violated their rights and left a bruise. Now your looking at 10 years in prison.
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 242
Quick search by citation:
Title
enter title
Section
section
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. | 92 |
| 8 | Contact me T.me/RealChristopherhauser | 104 |
| 9 | Law of Voids
An order made without any authority at law is a void order. A void judgment [or order] is, in legal effect, no judgment. By it no rights
are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceed ings founded upon it are equally worthless. Itneither binds nor bars any one.' [Citation.]" ( Bennett v. Wilson (1898) 122 Cal. 509, 513-514
[55 P. 390].) (Ibid)
The 9th Amendment, for example voids the Patriot Act. The 9th is higher law and dictates that your rights may not diminish. When the government
tried to pass a law like the Patriot Actwhich literally takes the construct of "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty without the right to prove
innocence" their new law is no law at all, it is void. By enacting the Patriot Act and enforcing it the government commits high treason.
"If the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding," Evans v Corporate Services, 207 lll.App.3d 297,
565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990)
"a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally" Oak Park Nat. Bank v
Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 III.App.2d 385, 197 N.E.2d 73, 77 (1st Dist. 1964)
"that judgment is void and may be attacked at any time in the same or any other court, by the parties or by any other person who is affected thereby .".It is also clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court at any time."
People v Wade, 116 lll.2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987)
"A void judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally." In re Marriage of Macina, 236 lll.App.3d 886 {2nd Dist.1992)
"if the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding," Evans v Corporate Services, 207 III.App.3d297, 565 N.E.2d724 (2nd Dist. 1990)
"a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally" - The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. Vallely v Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)
"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it.theirjudgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v McDonough,
204 U.S.8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v Berry, 8 How. 495 , | 119 |
| 10 | So it should be listed on a maritime lien against the prepaid trust account and filed with the county recorder and put on a UCC1.
§8-102(13), §9-203; §9-505, §9-312.
46 USC §§31321, 31343, 46 CFR 67.250, §9-102(52), §9-317, §9-322
One should file a claim for set off or recoupment to have the assets cancel out the liabilities according to:
FAS 140, §3-305, §3-601, §8-105, §9-404
If a lender sells an unregistered note that is a security, it is a violation of state law and provides a right to rescission of the contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 80A.80, 336.9-318, 336.9-408
The prepaid trust account is held by the Alien Property Custodian, who is also the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico.
UCC §1-201(24), §3-104, §3-306, §3-105,
UCC §§8-102 (7), (9), (15), (17), §8-501, §8-503, §8-511
UCC §§9-102(9), (11), (12)(B), (49), (64) | 99 |
| 11 | 12 USC 1813(l)(1) All commercial instruments such as promissory notes, credit agreements, bills of exchange and checks are defined as legal tender, or money, by the statutes such as 12 USC 1813(l)(1), UCC §1-201(24), §3-104, §8-102(9), §§9-102(9), (11), (12)(B), (49), (64). These statutes define a promissory note or security to be negotiable (sellable) because it is a financial asset. This is necessary because contracts requiring lawful money are illegal pursuant to Title 31 USC §5118(d) (2). All debts today are discharged by promises to pay in the future. All Federal Reserve notes are registered securities and promises to pay in the future. They are secured by liens on promissory notes of collateral owned by real people. The statutes do not provide the Federal Reserve Corporation a monopoly on promissory notes, as debt collectors insist. Real people create promissory notes that are usually sold to the FED in exchange for their promissory notes. The FED uses the promises of the people’s collateral to secure their notes. If people want their commercial instruments to be legal tender, they must be secured by a maritime lien on your prepaid trust account recorded at the county and registered on a UCC1. It then becomes a registered security and a financial asset that can be negotiated.
One should be aware that debt collectors only deal with fictions of law, such as corporations or “persons”. Therefore, one should have a Bailee/Bailor contract filed on a UCC1 and create all documents as the Bailee, signed by the Bailor. The Bailor is never allowed to appear in their jurisdiction.
When quoting UCC statutes, the courts require them to be quoted with state or federal statute designation. UCC codes are UN statutes, but are codified in every local jurisdiction. In Minnesota, a code such as UCC §2-302 becomes Minnesota Statute 336.2-302.
The counterclaim is based on several defenses:
The contract should be rescinded because the creditor does not provide full disclosure, or the contract is extremely deceptive and unconscionable, In re Pearl Maxwell, 281 B.R. 101
The Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, 12 CFR §226.23, says that the security agreement signed with a lender can be rescinded if they have not provided the proper disclosures. Although home mortgages are exempt from some rescissions, this option becomes available if they foreclose and they stated the incorrect amount of the debt, or used the wrong form. The original debt was actually zero because the borrower’s financial asset was exchanged for the FED’s promissory notes in an even exchange.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§1601, 1692, 1693, provides remedies for deceptive or unconscionable contracts and allows payment in any legal tender. The contract was deceptive and unconscionable if the actual debt was zero.
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 12 U.S.C. §2605, et seq. Provides remedies for deceptive communications from the lender.
UCC §2-302 provides a remedy for unconscionable contracts.
Promissory Notes and other commercial instruments are legal tender and financial assets to the originator and a liability to the lender. If a security interest in the note is perfected, by recording it on a lien as a registered security, the maker or originator becomes an entitlement holder in the asset. But the debt collector does not understand that they have this liability because most people are unaware of it.
The corporation’s records should be requested in discovery. They will show that the corporation has an offsetting liability to the debtor pursuant to FAS 95, GAAP and Thrift Finance Reports (TFR). These records include:
FR 2046 balance sheet,
1099-OID report,
S-3/A registration statement,
424-B5 prospectus and
RC-S & RC-B Call Schedules
The corporation never registers the commercial instrument because they know it is a financial asset to the debtor. So the debtor must register it to establish a security interest in the financial asset and take the position of a secured creditor. | 114 |
| 12 | what is federal reserve "paper money" THEY ARE PROMISSORY NOTES....
Fidelity Bank Guarantee vs. Henwood, 307 U.S. 847 (1939) ,take notice of ... "As of Oct. 27, 1977, legal tender for discharge of debt is is no longer required. That is because legal tender is not in circulation at par with promises to pay credit. There can be no requirement of repayment in legal tender either, since legal tender was not loaned [nor in circulation] and repayment , [or payment] need only be paid in equivalent kind, A negotiable instrument | 114 |
| 13 | - Who: Cyber Division analysts, counter-terrorism agents, and intelligence
contractors operating under administrative authority.
- Where: Distributed electronic processing grids connecting the National Security
Branch to all 56 field offices across states like Texas, Florida, and Washington.
- Technical Details: Utilizing automated scraping programs to ingest raw internet
metadata, bypassing judicial review by issuing administrative subpoenas without probable
cause, and applying retroactive classification markings to shield data collection from
Congressional oversight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CONTEMPORARY WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE RETALIATION (2020s)
- The Transgression: Weaponizing the internal security clearance review process
to suspend, strip pay from, and terminate Special Agents who formally disclose
political bias or data manipulation to Congressional committees.
- Who: Senior Human Resources administrators, internal security division heads,
and executive command personnel.
- Where: FBI Headquarters (J. Edgar Hoover Building) in Washington D.C., affecting
personnel stationed across regional field offices nationwide.
- Technical Details: Labeling lawful, protected disclosures to Congress as
"security risks," freezing employees' personal financial accounts via administrative
orders, and using coordinated internal investigations to silence dissent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. LEGAL AND PENAL VIOLATIONS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CODE
- 18 U.S. Code § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiring to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right secured by the Constitution carries maximum federal felony penalties.
- 18 U.S. Code § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice): Corruptly influencing, impeding,
or obstructing the due administration of justice, including falsifying trial
evidence or hiding records, results in direct felony prosecution.
- 5 U.S. Code § 2302 (Whistleblower Protection Act Violations): It is a federal
administrative crime to execute personnel retaliation against an employee who
safely and lawfully reports a violation of law, rule, or regulation.
====================================================================== | 143 |
| 14 | History Note: Who Really Started the FBI?
A lot of people think the FBI was created by J. Edgar Hoover, but that’s actually not true.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was founded in 1908 by Charles Joseph Bonaparte, who was the U.S. Attorney General at the time, under President Theodore Roosevelt.
Originally, it was called the Bureau of Investigation (BOI) and was created to:
Investigate federal crimes
Reduce corruption
Bring investigations under federal control instead of private detectives
It wasn’t until 1935 that the BOI officially became the FBI.
Hoover didn’t found it — but he did later transform it into a powerful national agency, which is why his name is often remembered more than the actual founder.
History matters. Names matter. And knowing who really built the system changes how we understand it.
======================================================================
THE HISTORICAL ARCHIVE OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) SCANDALS
======================================================================
1. THE HOOVER ERA AND THE SYSTEMIC COINTELPRO OPERATIONS (1956–1971)
- The Transgression: Carrying out illegal surveillance, warrantless wiretaps,
covert break-ins, and psychological harassment campaigns targeting domestic
political activists, civil rights leaders, and anti-war movements.
- Who: FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, specialized intelligence divisions, and
Field Office Special Agents in Charge (SACs).
- Where: Administered globally from Washington D.C., with intense physical field
operations executed across New York, California, Illinois, and Alabama.
- Technical Details: Weaponizing un-audited intercept files to execute blackmail,
utilizing fake media leaks to ruin reputations, planting paid informants into
peaceful assemblies, and coordinating with local police to bypass standard
Fourth Amendment warrant rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FRAUDULENT FORENSIC SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN JUDICIAL TRIALS (1970s–1990s)
- The Transgression: Presenting scientifically unverified, exaggerated, or
dishonest forensic laboratory testimonies in thousands of federal and state
criminal court proceedings to secure convictions.
- Who: FBI Laboratory Division examiners, forensic technicians, and federal
prosecutors relying on flawed laboratory files.
- Where: FBI Laboratory Headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, with legal impacts
undermining judicial courtrooms in all 50 states.
- Technical Details: Falsifying microscopic hair comparison logs, exaggerating the
accuracy of bullet lead analysis metrics, hiding internal laboratory data that
showed a lack of match, and ignoring quality control audits to speed up
prosecutorial outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. MANAGEMENT CONCEALMENT AND INTEL FAILS OF THE WHITEY BULGER ENTERPRISE
- The Transgression: Protecting, funding, and insulating a violent organized
crime syndicate from local police arrests in exchange for confidential informant
data, leading directly to authorized extortion and murder.
- Who: Special Agent John Connolly, supervisory staff within the Boston Field
Office, and criminal ringleader James "Whitey" Bulger.
- Where: Boston, Massachusetts Field Office jurisdiction spanning the New England
regional sector.
- Technical Details: Tipping off cartel leaders about upcoming federal indictments,
revealing the identities of legitimate informants to criminal actors, and actively
falsifying official internal informant logs to mask ongoing criminal activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. MODERN ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND WARRANTLESS DATA SCRAPING (2000s–PRESENT)
- The Transgression: Systematically using National Security Letters (NSLs) and
exploiting FISA Section 702 databases to run thousands of unauthorized,
warrantless queries on the electronic data, emails, and phone records of
domestic U.S. citizens. | 118 |
| 15 | Child support... its a business, money laundering operation guised as though its in the best interest of a child, thats one of the biggest lies they tell.
Funny they care so much about children yet not one piece of shit from the Epstine files has been hung yet..... let that sink in.
45 CFR § 302.19 - Bonding of employees.
CFR
prev | next
§ 302.19 Bonding of employees.
The State plan shall provide that the following requirements and criteria to bond employees are in effect:
(a) IV-D responsibility. The IV-D agency will insure that every person, who has access to or control over funds collected under the child support enforcement program, is covered by a bond against loss resulting from employee dishonesty.
(b) Scope. The requirement in paragraph (a) of this section applies to every person who, as a regular part of his or her employment, receives, disburses, handles or has access to support collections, which includes:
(1) IV-D agency employees and employees of any other State or local agency to which IV-D functions have been delegated.
(2) Employees of a court or law enforcement official performing under a cooperative agreement with the IV-D agency.
(3) Employees of any private or governmental entity from which the IV-D agency purchases services.
(c) Bond. The bond will be for an amount which the State IV-D agency deems adequate to indemnify the State IV-D program for loss resulting from employee dishonesty.
(d) Self-bonding System. A State or political subdivision may comply with the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) By means of a self-bonding system established under State law or,
(2) In the case of a political subdivision, by means of a self-bonding system approved by the State IV-D agency.
(e) IV-D liability. The requirements of this section do not reduce or limit the ultimate liability of the IV-D agency for losses of support collections from the State's IV-D program.
[44 FR 28803, May 17, 1979; 44 FR 45137, Aug. 1, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 57281, Dec. 23, 1982] | 100 |
| 16 | 'when you don't understand what you believe, then you suffer" superstitions Stevie Wonder.
True facts, in no particular order:
1. The 1933 amendment to the 1932 'Home Owners Loan Act' created the "Savings and Loan Association" administered by the European 'Reconstruction Finance Corporation".
2. The 1933 amendment, repealed any presumed authority to extend any form of a "loan"to a "private land homeowner" seriously, why in the hell would a 'homeowner" need another loan, if the couldn't pay the first one?
3. At the end of WWII, the "Reconstruction Finance Corporation" a division of the 'Bank for International Settlement", established in 1930, to settle the War debt incurred by Germany, was abolished in 1948.
4. "Countrywide" a 'Savings and Loan Association" was created by "Bank of America" formerly 'Bank of Italy" or according to some experts, the Bank of the Vatican, and is listed as an 'Edge Act Corporation".the said listed security, was 'Bonds issued by Europe"of which Congress failed to recognize as any application in the several states.
5. There was in fact no "Savings and Loan" crisis, in 2008, or anytime, there never could be any legal 'foreclose of private residential real property in the several states, since by the very provisions of the 1933 amendment, a "homeowner" could pay the "obligation" with 'bonds"issued. | 95 |
| 17 | UCC 2-104. Definition: "MERCHANT"; " BETWEEN MERCHANTS "; " FINANCING AGENCY ".
(1). " MERCHANT " Means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skilled particular to the practice or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skills may be attributed by the employment of an agent or broker or other Intermediary , who by his occupation , holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill. | 95 |
| 18 | Your private administrative process must operate as follows:
1. Do everything by affidavit or asseveration, notarized.
2. Use a notary for everything sending out all of your paperwork, receiving responses, keeping the notarial logbook, retaining copies of everything sent and received, executing such notarial documents as those involved in a notary protest, etc.
3. Have your notary send your adversaries your notices in the private capacity of all involved parties.
4. Never dishonor or traverse, which you can do by enjoining (commenting on, whether admitting or denying) any of the content, i.e., subject matter, in their communications, as well as by ignoring what you receive (failing to respond within the time frames required).
Remember the definition of “traverser” from Black’s Law Dictionary: “In pleading, one who traverses or denies. A prisoner or party indicted; so called from his traversing the indictment.” Regard the content of their documents as their truth or fantasy, which, in either case, is not your position/truth and therefore not your business to comment on one way or another, other than as above, “maybe what you say is true, but if so, prove it.” Then you have not dishonored by ignoring, nor traversed by commenting on their statements.
5. Remember the maxim of law: “The burden of proof resides on him who asserts, not on one against whom a claim or charge is made.” They initiated the matter and are demanding something from you, not the reverse. Therefore, in the Private Administrative Process the burden of proof concerning the validity of their assertion's rests with them, not you.
Their stipulations established by the foregoing process include their admission and confession, i.e.,
“Confession of judgment,” that:
1. You are the creditor and not a debtor concerning the transaction.
2. There is no evidence that they are the creditor.
3. They owe you, and you can bill them for, the sum-certain amount set forth in the paperwork.
4. They have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
5. Any and all proceeding against you thereafter constitutes a libel on the public record authorizing your filing a libel of review in the (general) admiralty against all parties in their private capacity, devoid of official immunity.
6. They and all others are hereafter forever estopped from raising the issue, contesting the stipulations, or proceeding against you in any way concerning what has been finalized | 104 |
| 19 | Failure to Due process...
Yes/ No ?
Unfair ADVANTAGES/ Practices
For UNJUST ENRICHMENTS!
FRAUD & DECEPTIVE PRACTICES/ ORGANIZED CRIMES / R.I.C.O ACTIVITIES...
SWINDLES, SCHEMES, & CONS!
FRAUD IN ONE THING, IS FRAUD IN EVERYTHING!
Maxim of law!
The Brady doctrine, established in the landmark case:
Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors in criminal cases to disclose to the defense any material evidence that is exculpatory or impeaching, meaning evidence that could potentially prove the defendant's innocence or undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness.
This duty of disclosure applies even if the prosecution did not intentionally conceal the evidence.
Key aspects of the Brady doctrine:
Exculpatory Evidence:
This is evidence that suggests the defendant is not guilty, such as a witness statement contradicting the prosecution's case.
Impeaching Evidence:
This is evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness, such as evidence of their prior dishonesty or bias.
Materiality:
For evidence to be subject to disclosure under Brady, it must be "material," meaning it could likely affect the outcome of the trial.
Duty to Disclose:
Prosecutors have a duty to disclose all such evidence, regardless of whether the defense specifically requested it.
Consequences of Non-Disclosure:
Failure to disclose Brady material can lead to dismissal of charges, reversal of a conviction, or a new trial.
Examples of Brady material:
Police reports containing inconsistent statements from witnesses.
Evidence of pending charges against a police informant.
Information about a witness's history of lying or bias.
Evidence that contradicts the prosecution's theory of the case.
Brady violations are a frequent issue in criminal procedure:
Prosecutors are responsible for disclosing any favorable evidence known to the government, including the police.
A Brady violation can occur even if the prosecutor's failure to disclose is unintentional.
The Brady doctrine ensures fairness in criminal trials by giving defendants access to evidence that could help them present a strong defense.
The Brady doctrine has been interpreted and expanded by various court decisions over the years. | 173 |
| 20 | Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment. 16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:
Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349.
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power." Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356 1886:
State courts do not have jurisdiction on Indian reservations without the authorization of Congress. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).
“State courts, like federal courts, have a “constitutional obligation” to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.” Stone v. Powell 428 US 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2D 1067. | 109 |
