Extensive Newsletter Releases

🧠 On How to Study — Newsletter Insight

“The rational study of law is still to a large extent the study of history.” – Holmes (1897)

In the newsletter version of this article, we include historical context and study methods.

🌍 On The Existing World Government — Newsletter Feature

Most people do not know, remember, or factor in the following contract law and UCC concept.

And it comes up all the time but usually I must remind people of it.

People are concerned and awakening to the sinister and malevolent agenda to create a “World Government”.

And trust me, I’ve been following and am against that further consolidation of power by corrupt and evil people as well.

But, just so that you know, the actual fact of the matter is that we already have a world government – and it is Contract Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code.

Every country in the world, every State or Province in those country’s, all follow both of these.

So wouldn’t it be stupid to go through your whole life and not read at least the beginner’s level book on understanding both of them?

Wouldn’t it be your fault if you are not succeeding in life because there already is a world government and you fail to understand the rules (that apply to everybody all over the world) relating to the rules we are all expected to follow?

Our newsletter readers get exclusive breakdowns like this.

⚖️ Jurisdiction Tidbit of the Month (Newsletter Snippet)

“Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea.” 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351.”

Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

🛡️ Immunity Lesson of the Month — Newsletter Edition

“…officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. City of Independence, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (8th circuit, 1980); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S.

🔍 Federal Question Lesson of the Month — Featured in This Newsletter

Read Cooperative Federalism by Gerald Brown, Ed.D.

One may find this document by simply doing an internet search for “Cooperative Federalism PDF” or the like.

It’s 40 pages of juicy education and steeped with facts in regards to the States of the UNION being Separate, Distinct, and Foreign to the UNITED STATES.

Every beginner of self‑help law has a “first document” they’ve ever read/studied, and this is probably it for most of us.

Anytime federal or state courts argue that your court statements are based on “discredited sovereign citizen legal theories”—actually NO, they are based on U.S. Supreme Court opinions, as Cooperative Federalism will enlighten you and give all the citations for you to shoot back with.

⚖️ Constitutional Lesson of the Month — From This Newsletter Issue

Fifth Amendment vs. Fourteenth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment secures the due process rights against Federal officials, but not State officials.

That reality was made apparent by the U.S. Civil War and subsequent abolition of involuntary servitude (without due process of law).

Some people ask me if one as an SPC who has obtained their right status, can also use the Fourteenth Amendment when up against State agents/actors.

The answer is yes, you can use it, because the laws exist FOR YOU as the plaintiff to use (if you become a plaintiff by filing a case).

The statutes and constitutional text support that you can use it without submitting to their jurisdiction.

These laws bind OFFENDERS of said statutes, which are restricting GOVERNMENT AGENTS, not private people.

And the allegations are against THEM, not against you, so you are not submitting to any corporate jurisdiction.

You are simply pointing out that as corporate agents AND republic officers (they are both), that they are violating THEIR OWN CORPORATE LAWS (as well as those of the common law republic).

If you resign and leave employment at Facebook, Inc., you need to still pursue a claim against a Facebook employee for sexual harassment or other mistreatment, and you can use their own internal bylaws first.

If the internal bylaw administrative process they lay out to redress in their “private corporate bylaw manual” does not result in remedy, then you can go to outside jurisdiction such as the outside Courts to sue that Facebook employee or employer who you believe has violated a law or harmed you.

That is also how it works with the other corporations you sue.

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT say: “nor shall any State deprive any U.S. Citizen of life, liberty, or property.”

Just read the text of it yourself:

“Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

📋 Contract Law lesson of the Month — In This Month’s Newsletter

It’s been said that “Consent makes the law” or “Consent makes ALL or EVERY Law”. That’s a profound and grand statement, and one so consequential that it should take a thinking mind several or many years to continually investigate and get to the bottom of.

Luckily, by supporting us, you can piggy back off of our full-time research for 15 years in this space.

We’ll drip bite-sized bits of these lessons in each of our newsletters so that no matter how busy you are you can continue to work to comprehend better, and make more progress in “unlocking” the next layer.

The definition of “Consent” from Bouvier’s 6th edition is: “Consent is either express or implied. Express, when it is given viva voce, or in writing; implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions, or fats, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.”

Take that in and integrate it for now. If you have questions, get a hold of the Contract Law Basics Beginner’s (CLBB) course, or ask to mentor with Tyler personally. Or just hang tight and continue with your own studies.

💳 Credit Leveraging and/or Debt Cancellation tip of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

Once you’ve already made the decision to “throw down” and not paying the debt collectors – and this should be obvious to most of you but we don’t know what you know – you need to know that you should not interact or engage with debt collectors as this is a form of acceptance.

You are giving veracity to the debt and can totally screw any progress of any discharge process you have begun.

Even logging into a payment portal to see the status of the so-called account, can potentially be seen as re-memorializing the existence of and legal veracity of this so-called account.

You might be shocked to hear that – but why? Did you read or re-visit reading the contract of the online portal that you signed up to?

Every time you visit a website, especially log into any ‘special access’ section of any website, you are agreeing to terms and conditions.

If you don’t know this already like the back of your hand, this might explain why you are failing in some of your contract law and debt elimination endeavors.

If that is you, maybe it’s time to stop doing processes and instead focus on learning to become a master at contract law first – so that any future process that you do will be done entirely correct and you will WIN.

📚 Definition lesson of the month: Pro Persona — In This Month’s Newsletter

In pro persona: “in one’s own proper person” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st edition)

Meaning, not through any other alter-identity. Some definitions of “Pro Se” cover in pro persona, but others contradict pro persona – so it’s best to strictly address your status a “in pro persona” rather than “pro se”.

How to correctly use it in a courtroom setting (public or private):

One might wish to announce themselves when asked for your name, with this entire script (both orally and in writing):

My name is John-Henry of the Doe family, in pro persona, secured party and trustee to the corporate fiction of JOHN HENRY DOE; both names are copyright property of mine and record of all these unrebutted facts are record on public record by the Secretary of State of (whatever state) and therefore stand as prima facie truth in any legal proceeding.

Stating this without a sufficient rebuttal with legal weight that contradicts these assertions, will make sure that you get on the court record of not only what your “name” you are presenting/appearing under, but also the capacity and conditions of that presentation and appearance.

⚖️ Equity Discussion of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

At the end of any presidential executive order, they mention “in law or in equity”.

For example, on this February 10, 2025 executive order from President Trump, “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement To Further American Economic and National Security”, it says:

“(c) This order is not intended and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

So what I’m training you to do here, is to NOTICE the words “law or in equity” as they commonly are paired together.

Obviously equity is not covered under the word “law” so it is not law.

So wouldn’t it be wise to really understand what it is?

🛡️ Immunity lesson of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

“Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading constitutional rights.”

– American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO vs. Woodward, 406 F2d 137 t.

⚠️ Ineffective Processes lesson of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

DO NOT ASK US “HOW TO I FILE A LIEN ON [SOMEBODY]?” Instead, ask,

“How do I get a court-ordered judgment against [this somebody]” This is your safer bet.

Obtaining a Judgment, or Settlement, will actually get you PAID.

All Judgments ARE LIENS THEMSELVES, but generally the Court Case has to happen first.

Filing Liens on somebody without a court order recognizing or allowing it, will be deemed unlawful in their system, and will probably result in serious legal problems for you – i.e. they will put you to prison for a long period of time.

It ain’t worth it!

The main exception to this rule is if the two parties meet and sign an agreement with “notice of lien” in the terms of the agreement, then, you might have a way to just go straight and place the lien outside of court, but you do so at your own risk.

Make sure you are fully sure and fully know what you are doing.

If anyone wants more information on this topic and why we suggest most people hit the law books or take our law courses, before just running into that lien filing office, it would be wise to do so.

We have an entire four pages of detail about why this lien idea/process has not resulted in good results as-applied.

This is available as part of the “Ineffective Processes” 70 page e-book ($650) giving you the full list of 85 Ineffective, False Hope and/or Dangerous and/or Fake processes, and in depth dissertations about 27 of them.

We are here to educate, not indoctrinate. We are here to keep people out of prison, not put people into prison.

📜 Favorite quote of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

Mark Twain: “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”

Newsletter: Maxim of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

Animus moninis est anima scripti. The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument.

📘 Paralegal Trivia of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

What is the difference between Holding and Dicta?

🚀 Personal Growth Lesson — In This Month’s Newsletter

“The further one goes, the less one knows.” – Lao Tzu

💫 Prayer, mantra, or affirmation of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

“I love myself and I deserve to have it all.”

🧠 Knowledge Paradox (Aristotle) — In This Month’s Newsletter

“The more we know, the more we know we don’t know.”

This is a famous quote from Aristotle, which captures the essence of a fascinating paradox that has puzzled thinkers for centuries.

This statement by Aristotle, one of the most influential philosophers in history, highlights the endless journey of knowledge.

It suggests that as we delve deeper into understanding, we uncover even more mysteries and uncertainties.

⚖️ Court Rule Highlight — In This Month’s Newsletter

Rule 12: Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Defenses (h) Waiver of Certain Defenses.

(3) If at any time before final judgment it appears that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.

What they mean here is that the court has an obligation to dismiss a case if it determines that it does not have the authority to hear the case based on subject matter jurisdiction.

This rule is what you can reference if you are looking to do just that – move to dismiss a case (usually because it is against you) based off of jurisdiction – in this example “subject-matter” jurisdiction only (in personam or other forms, you might use a different rule or combination of rules).

This you’ll also see the other side using against people who sue the government or corporate powers that be as well.

The rules of court exist for us all to pull from and use at our disposals, there they are.

It might behoove you to be familiar with them and study them at some point in your adult (or child’s) education.

It’s just a little more involved than training or re-training yourself to be ready to “stand up for yourself” if ever picked on by a bully.

You’ll want to watch this space and take precise notes in future lessons.

📖 SCOTUS Case — In This Month’s Newsletter

Many of us missed this when it happened: SCOTUS Cell Phone Location Privacy case filed in 2017 Carpenter v. United States, 582 U. S. _ (2017), decided 6/22/2018.

This case developed the holding that “The government’s acquisition of cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search” and that “The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests but certain expectations of privacy as well.

Thus, when an individual “seeks to preserve something as private,” and his expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,” official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause.

Roberts, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion in which Thomas and Alito joined.

Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas joined. Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

🪪 SPC (Secured Party Creditor) lesson of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

The SPC approach is the bailment approach:

A bailor is an individual who temporarily relinquishes possession but not ownership of a good or other property under a bailment agreement.

The bailor entrusts possession of the good(s) or property to another individual, known as the bailee.

Your ALL CAPS Name is the bailor and the secured party is the bailee, of all property of the ALL CAPS name.

Therefore, a valid legal theory exists to advance if you were ever held liable and that it shit – records at the State (Secretary of State/UCC filing) show this bailment status between the two entities of your name (one UPPER and one Upper-and-lower-case spelling), and that one is a real adult living man, and the other is just a corporate fiction like a corporation.

I can not “become” a corporation, and I can not “live” in a corporation – those are impossible.

Your theory is that you shall not be held “in persona conjuncta” or automatic surety to any possession of any of your corporate fiction entity’s property.

This explains why you hold onto the CORPORATE NAME’s drivers license, or similar documents.

This is great for protecting yourself in court against allegations that you are personally consenting to such “licensing” system, or by acceptance/possession of the mail at the U.S. corporate war-powers address, thus giving them personal jurisdiction over you the man or woman.

📜 Statute of the Month to study — In This Month’s Newsletter

“The appearance or semblance, without the substance of legal right…misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken ‘under color of state law.”

This is a quote from the statute in title 42 U.S. Code § 1983, also known as the KKK Act.

After the Civil War, the federal government passed various acts, the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871.

Years later, these acts were passed during the Reconstruction era in response to widespread violence and discrimination against African Americans, particularly in the Southern states.

These acts have evolved over time into the modern day Title 18 U.S. Code § 241 and 242.

Section 241 addresses conspiracy against rights, making it a federal offense for two or more people to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 242 makes it a federal crime for any person acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

When filing a case under Title 18, sections 241 or 242, it is not strictly necessary to reference the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, as these sections are already part of federal law and carry their own legal authority.

However, referencing the historical context of the Enforcement Acts can be beneficial because it may strengthen your case as you are raising to the forefront that there has been a long-standing legal framework aimed at protecting individuals from abuses of power and conspiracies.

Here’s a good list of related public cases that you can review that used the KKK Act:

United States v. Price (1966), United States v. McGowan (1973), Doe v. Taylor Independent School District (1994), United States v. McGhee (1976), United States v. Hines (2000).

📘 Trust Education of the month — In This Month’s Newsletter

In the book Living Trust for Everyone (second edition) by Ronald Farrington Sharp (which I’ve been recommending for years), in the “Introduction” before Chapter 1 (page xiv.), Sharp writes:

“When I was back in law school back in 1973, I took an introductory course on trusts and estates. Our class was visited by an old time lawyer who gave us what he considered practical and useful advice in starting out in the practice of law.

I will paraphrase his advice as I remember it… We were in one of the big lecture halls and he stood onstage at the podium, then began to pace much as I imagined he did while talking to a jury:

‘When you young people get done with law school and pass the bar, most of you will be going into private practice. You will meet a lot of people who want you to do their wills. A lot of them will be your own age. I am going to tell you how to make the most of this opportunity.

Now, you don’t make much money on a will. In fact, you don’t want to. Consider it a loss leader. The thing to do is do these wills real cheap. Word will get out and you will have a lot of wills to do.

How you do it is important. First, when you write it up, be sure to put in that they want you to be the attorney who handles the estate – put it right in the will.

Get some nice printed-up will paperwork with fancy lettering and your name and address printed on the envelope.

Then, make sure that you have a Will File. Keep the original copy of the will and give the client a photocopy and a receipt for the original.

Tell them this is normal procedure so the will is kept safe.

Now what will happen is that as the years go by your Will File gets bigger and bigger. Then, your clients start to die off.

When they do, the family has to come to you because you have the will. Naturally, they expect that you will be the lawyer for the estate, since you are named in the will and have the original.

So now, as you reach the last half of your practice, you have a built-in probate practice. Probate is very lucrative. This, ladies and gentlemen, is your retirement plan.’

I thought then (and still do) that this was a very sleazy tactic – one that gives all lawyers a bad name…this practice is still going on and no one is the wiser.

Clients are not getting the proper advice and planning they rely on, and lawyers are profiting.

The fact is that in most cases, probate is not necessary and is easily avoided.

If proper planning is done, there should be no legal fees at all after a person’s death other than a possible question-and-answer conference.

I have found that people are lost at sea when a person dies and seek help – usually from a lawyer.

They are then charged hundreds of dollars an hour for many hours simply because only the lawyer knows what needs to be done at death, even if the deceased has made very careful plans to simplify the estate and keep it out of probate.

So included as the last chapter is an actual set of step-by-step instructions – the secret is now out of what to do at death.

I hope that I have explained trusts in a simple and understandable way so you as the reader and potential client know as much about trusts as most of the lawyers out there.”

🎥 Understand Yourself and You Win (life coaching / personal development section) — In This Month’s Newsletter

The Truth About Radically Transforming Yourself by Owen Cook.

📑 Contract Law Lesson of the Month — In This Month’s Newsletter

“Acceptance is the offeree’s manifestation of assent to the offer….intent to accept is determined objectively.

The question is not whether the offeree actually intended to accept, but whether a reasonable person in the offeror’s position would have understood the manifestation as an acceptance.

It is the event that brings the contract into existence because, as noted before, the offer necessarily contemplates that the parties will become bound immediately upon the offeree’s exercise of the power of acceptance.”

– Brian Blum, Examples & Explanations for Contracts, The Nature and Effect of Acceptance, chapter 4.7.

⚖️ Constitutional Sixth Amendment — In This Month’s Newsletter

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Sixth Amendment can be leveraged to one’s advantage by pushing for the nature and cause of the accusation.

The truth about what the real dynamic in these courts, which are ventures of for-profit corporations who mortgage the defendant’s birth certificate’s to create debt notes, to deposit as assets.

The courts are banks. The truth is too much to tell so this is a potential avenue to push one’s Constitutional rights to either win or negotiate a favorable settlement on terms you can live with.

⚖️ Favorite Quote of the Month — In This Month’s Newsletter

“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first stage it is ridiculed, in the second stage it is opposed, in the third stage it is regarded as self-evident.”

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Credit Tip of the month courtesy of our PDF for purchase, “Give Yourself Credit”:

So people always generally say “keep your credit utilization ratio below 30%” – this is useful for right before doing a transaction like financing, mortgaging, or leasing.

But, if you aren’t doing any of these things, then this advice does not apply.

Don’t beat yourself up if your ratio is higher. You can always fix that in a jiffy and cause your STRAWMAN PERSON’s credit score to skyrocket by borrowing some money or getting a bigger bonus payday or with an uptake in new customers for your business.

Don’t let your credit woes bother you mentally, emotionally, or spiritually.

📺 Movie of the Month — In This Month’s Newsletter

Documentary Britney vs Spears (available on Netflix), released in 2021, tells the real tale of America’s favorite lovely pop icon, Britney Spears, and the legal battle over the “conservatorship” that controlled every detail of her own life’s decision-making.

A conservatorship is similar to a guardianship which is paired with the term “ward” (guardian-ward relationship).

Britney was exploited by her handler, which in this case was actually her father who sold her out to the Illuminati and Hollywood.

Due to what seemed to be one medical doctor’s possible incorrect diagnosis (was he bribed or working for the Illuminati?), she was classified under a dementia diagnosis in order to enable all of her rights to be controlled by her appointed guardian or conservator.

Britney was destined for Hollywood by her handlers, who in this case was her very own father instead of some non-family Hollywood handlers.

Hollywood handlers have always gotten the star/icon/musician deep in debt, as well as traumatize and torture them in order to control them and prevent them speaking out about anything important.

Musical icons are obviously a major influence on Americans, and especially the younger generations.

This is why even Jesse Waters (Fox News) did a piece about Taylor Swift being an asset to the Pentagon, which might explain why her boyfriend is a spokesperson for Pfizer.

Michael Jackson, Prince, and Ye West (formerly Kanye) have all been woke to the Illuminati, their Handlers, and attempted to speak out against them, and you saw what happened to them.

Alas, in this documentary you will see how Britney Spear’s father obtained legal rights to make all decisions for his daughter, whatsoever, from where she can go, who she can associate with, what she can eat, which medications she must and mustn’t take (including the right to hold her down and force her to swallow medications), and of course – total and complete control of her money.

Britney was given a small allowance each month and needed permission to leave the house to go anywhere.

From public pressure, the Judge on the case in California finally released Britney to her own sovereignty – but after the damage was done for two decades.

Let’s all offer some prayers for Britney…at least now this story is waking people up to the legal concept of STATUS.

And we can use her story to encourage others to learn more about “Status” under the law.

The status that they put Britney under is very similar to the one that we are all also under whenever we are invited to show up in Court (we are all presumed and considered minor children and wards of the court and the Judge the guardian over us).

In Britney’s case, it was only more obvious, but this is the legal relationship every single one of the people have been under when going to court as well.

🔍 Secrets Hidden on FRNs of the Month — In This Month’s Newsletter

On the reverse side of your Social Security card is a letter and eight-digit number.

This letter represents the Federal Reserve Bank branch (A thru L for the 13 branches) that prints money from the financing of your Birth Certificate and other Adhesion Contracts over each U.S. Resident or U.S. Citizen’s life – to enable printing of the currency from Federal Reserve Banks and placed into circulation.

If you pull out Federal Reserve Notes from your wallet and examine them, you will see a letter or letters.

These letters are indicative of the Federal Reserve Bank branch that printed the notes, along with an eight-digit number.

The eight-digit number is identical to one resident or citizen’s reverse side of one of his or her Social Security cards.

This number is the account number (keeping account of something), tracking the Person’s BC being monetized through the Mortgaging and Collateralization event by the for-profit enterprise known as the UNITED STATES Corporation.

Now does it all make sense how we are born slaves?

People sometimes ask me what the numbers on the birth certificate actually mean.

First off, the “Local Registration District number” or the like is not anything we are concerned about for right now.

Next, the serial numbers just mean the number of BC that was printed by request of a customer – for instance, each certified copy that a customer requests will be the last serial number plus one and thus are numbered in sequence of the chronological order of issuance.

So these are not “BC Numbers” when I generally refer to BC number.

When we generally talk about birth certificate numbers, we refer to the “Birth number” or “State File Number”.

These are my definition of “Birth Certificate numbers”.

So now that we are all on the same page as to what a “BC number” is – we can get to decoding the birth certificate numbers.

The first three numbers are the county of the birth, the next two or four digits are the year you were born, and the last six digits are your lifetime contractor/surety number with the U.S. Corporation.

Imagine that we are all born as indentured prisoners, and they let us be “free range” prisoners (living outdoors and doing our own thing rather than locked up), and that our prisoner number existing is proof of our lifetime “parole” status.

If we break the conditions of the parole (the U.S. Corporation’s corporate bylaws, codes, regulations, and statutes), then we can be seized/confiscated and sent “back to prison” since we were born prisoners in the first place.

Now does it all make sense how we are born slaves?

🧐 Other Questions about TRUSTS in General — In This Month’s Newsletter

What is the difference between a “Simple” Trust and a “Complex” Trust?

A complex trust is one in which the board of trustees may have discretion to hold on to revenue and make decisions based on bylaws, on what to do with it.

In a simple trust, the trustees are required by bylaw to disperse the funds immediately to the beneficiaries.

Anyone who sets up any type of asset planning trust is usually going to choose a complex trust because there is a lot more discretion and tax avoidance by law.

As opposed to in a simple trust, if it’s under U.S. jurisdiction and in the U.S., then the beneficiaries are going to owe a potential tax consequence on the disbursements.

📚 Statutes To Study and Follow — In This Month’s Newsletter

Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act.

This act has been enacted into each of all the STATE’s and basically says that any assets that changed hands into any other person – individual, business, or trust – may be able to be retroactively reverted back into the original seller’s estate and the sale or transfer vacated nunc pro tunc.

Within a five-year timeframe from the date of the transfer or sale.

This covers ANY/ALL property – deeds, intellectual property, investments, everything.

🏛️ U.S. Bankruptcy Proof of the Month — In This Month’s Newsletter

If there is any doubt to any member of the public reading this that the U.S. has gone into a Bankruptcy, it can be proven by just pursuing this truth in the public Congressional record:

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.”

— Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1993

📖 Best Rare Research Article of 2024 Award — In This Month’s Newsletter

2024 Award: The Nomenclature of Enslaved Africans as Real Property or Chattels Personal: Legal Fiction, Judicial Interpretation, Legislative Designation, or Was a Slave a Slave by Roy W. Copeland (Journal of Black Studies).

Journal of Black Studies: View on JSTOR.