Monday, November 5, 2012

Who Is Running America?



Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Freedom of Speech, Religion and Press
Declaration of Independence - 1776
Articles of Confederation - 1777
The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Application
Undermining The Constitution - A History of Lawless Government
Our Enemy, The State
It Is Our Choice Who We Will Serve!
Senate Report 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Acts
 Who Is Running America?
The Bankruptcy of America, the Corporate United States,
and the New World Order
From Archive Sources

Who is running America? Have you ever asked that question?
Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, "Government As Parent", as a result of the manipulated bankruptcy of the United States of America in 1930, ALL the assets of the American people, their person, and of our country itself are held by the Depository Trust Corporation at 55 Water Street, NY, NY, secured by UCC Commercial Liens, which are then monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve. It may interest you to know that under the umbrella of the Depository Trust Corporation lies the CEDE Corporation, the Federal Reserve Corporation, the American Bar Association, the legal arm of the banking interests, and the Internal Revenue Service, the system's collection agency.
                             Now you know who is running America!
You might want to take exception to the name on the marquee at the entrance to 55 Water Street.
??? . . . "Tower of Power" . . . ???
Another thing to think about -- who owns the media and the news you are fed???
Guess Who???         An Independent Press??? Ha!!!

Did you ever hear of the Independent Treasury Act of 1920? No, you say.... Hmmmmmmm....?
The Independent Treasury Act of 1920 suspended the de jure (meaning "by right of legal establishment") Treasury Department of the United States government. Our Congress turned the treasury department over to a private corporation, which when seen in its true light, is a fascist monopolistic cartel, the Federal Reserve and their agents. The bulk of the ownership of the Federal Reserve System, a very well kept secret from the American Citizen, is held by these banking interests, and NONE is held by the United States Treasury:
Rothschild Bank of London
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Lehman Brothers of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
The Federal Reserve is at the root of most of our present statutory regulations, "laws", in the control and regulation of virtually all aspects of human activity in the United States, through successively socialistic constructions laid upon the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Reserve is the "STATE" of the United States.

See "Our Enemy, The STATE" by Albert J. Nock - 1935, his Classic Critique Distinguishing "Government" from the "STATE."
See Also Charts in Text Format of Interlocking Directorships and Family Linkages taken from "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report, Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976."
See Also Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins.

Thomas Jefferson once said:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)
Jefferson's prophesy has come true.

How did this happen? ......Hmmmmm..... Well, that is going to take a while to explain.
All our law is private law, written by The National Law Institute, Law Professors, and the Bar Association, the Agents of Foreign Banking interests. They have come to this position of writing the law by fraudulently deleting the "Titles of Nobility and Honour" Thirteenth Amendment from the Constitution for the United States, creating an oligarchy of Lawyers and Bankers controlling all three branches of our government. Most of our law comes directly through the Hague or the U.N. Almost all U.N. treaties have been codified into the U.S. codes. That's where all our educational programs originate. The U.N. controls our education system.
The Federal Register Act was created by Pres. Roosevelt in 1935. Title 3 sec. 301 et seq. by Executive Order. He gave himself the power to create federal agencies and appoint a head of the agency. He then re-delegated his authority to make law (statutory regulations) to those agency heads. One big problem there, the president has no constitutional authority to make law. Under the Constitution re-delegation of delegated authority is a felony breach.

The president then gave the agencies the authority to tax. We now have government by appointment running this country. This is the shadow government sometimes spoken about, but never referred to as government by appointment. This type of government represents taxation without representation.

Perhaps this is why some people believe the Constitution was suspended. It wasn't suspended, it was buried in bureaucratic red tape.
Now, it is an historical fact that with the Declaration of Independence, to provide a united effort during and after the War for Independence, the Colonies as independent nations joined together under the Articles of Confederation, and as Independent Sovereign States drew up constitutions which formed governments to serve the people of each former colony. The Articles of Confederation, after a period of 8 years, were determined to have several flaws. The Congress of delegates called a Convention in 1787 to correct the flaws. The Convention, instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation as directed, in secret sessions took it upon themselves to write an entirely new Constitution, which when ratified by the State Conventions of the Freemen of the Individual States, created the Federal government to serve them in those areas where the States operating individually could not effectively serve. In this new Constitution the people and the States delegated to the Federal government certain responsibilities, reserving all rights not so enumerated to the States and to the People in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. As a consequence, the responsibility of the State became one of protecting the people from the tyranny of federal government, to insure that the federal government did not reach beyond the bounds of the Constitution. This worked fairly effectively, until 1933 when Roosevelt assumed office.
The Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Associations of Attorney Generals, Secretaries of State and State Auditors, State Purchasing Offices, Lieutenant Governors, and State Legislators, and the Governors of the 50 states comprise the membership of the Council of State Governments. The Council of State Governments is located at 676 N. ST. Clair, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
The Council of State Governments has now been absorbed into the National Conference on Uniform State Laws run by the Bar Association.
The movement for uniform state laws dates back more than a century. The Alabama State Bar called for uniformity as early as 1881, but it was nearly a decade later, at the 12th annual meeting of the ABA in 1889, that the legal community made its formal motion to work for uniformity in the then 44 state union. New York was the first state to move, appointing three commissioners in 1890. Other states soon heeded the call: Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania attended the first Conference in Saratoga Springs, New York, in 1892. The commissioners wasted no time. They urged adoption of three acts and proposed raising the marrying age to 18 for males and 16 for females. They also adopted a table of weights and measures, noting that with the exception of wheat, legal weights of a bushel varied in all the states.
By the turn of the century, 33 states and two territories had appointed commissioners on uniform laws. In 1910, only Nevada and the Territory of Alaska still had not; they came aboard in 1912.

100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS
An Abridged Chronology
1890 - New York state legislature passes first state act authorizing governor to appoint three commissioners. The American Bar Association (ABA)recommends that other states follow New York's lead.
1891 - Connecticut's Lyman D. Brewster named to chair newly-created ABA committee on uniform law. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Delaware appoint commissioners.
1892 - First conference held in Saratoga Springs New York. Above states plus Georgia attend formal meeting.
1893 - Committees appointed on such subjects as wills, marriage and divorce, commercial law, descent and distribution.
1895 - Conference requests committee on commercial law be formed. Drafts, Negotiable Instrument Law, precursor to Article 3 of Uniform Commercial Code.
1896 - Negotiable Instrument Law approved by Conference. First time that a uniform act is adopted in every state and the District of Columbia.
1897 - For the first time, Commissioners urged to work toward enactment of uniform legislation in their states.
1898/1899 - Sessions devoted to the consideration of proposed divorce legislation.
1899 - At the end of the 1890s, 33 of the existing 45 states and two territories had appointed uniform law commissioners and eight uniform acts had been drafted, each enacted in at least one state. All these acts were subsequently superseded or declared obsolete.
1900 - Uniform Divorce Procedure Act adopted. Louis B. Brandeis begins five years of service as member of Massachusetts commission.
1901 - Woodrow Wilson begins tenure (until 1908) as commissioner from New Jersey.
1903 - ABA makes first appropriation in support of work of Conference. James Barr Ames of Harvard Law School commissioned to draft the Uniform Partnership Act.
1905 - Samuel W. Pennypacker, Pennsylvania Governor, invites other governors to send delegation to a national divorce conference--meets twice in 1906; three acts endorsed.
1906 - First roll call by states as Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act is approved. Legal scholar Roscoe Pound serves for one year as a commissioner from Nebraska.
1907 - Uniform Desertion Act and Non-Support Act and Uniform Marriage Act authorized. Act Regulating Annulment of Marriage of Divorce adopted. Also, Act Providing for the Return of Marriage Statistics, Act Providing for the Return of Divorce Statistics.
1908 - Work begins on Uniform Corporation Act.
1910 - Twenty uniform acts approved in decade of the teens. The Uniform Partnership Act, begun in 1906, was completed by William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
1911 - Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and Uniform Child Labor Act approved.
1912 - Uniform Marriage Evasion Act adopted. Woodrow Wilson, commissioner from New Jersey from 1901 to 1908 elected U.S. President in a landslide.
1914 - Uniform Partnership Act completed. Will be adopted by all the states. Also Foreign Acknowledgement Act, Cold Storage Act, Workmens's Compensation Act.
1915 - Name changed to National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Constitution and by-laws completely revised. Each act now must be considered section by section during at least two annual meetings.
1916 - Uniform Limited Partnership Act as well as Extradition of Persons of Unsound Minds Act approved, also Land Registration Act.
1917 - Uniform Flag Act approved.
1918 - Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act approved.
1920 - Certain Acts withdrawn; others declared obsolete. After pruning, 26 acts remain as recommended for passage in state legislatures.
1930 - During the 30s, Conference adopts 31 acts.
1935 - Conference entered into agreement with American Law Institute for cooperative drafting of acts in area of common interest.
1936 - After revisions, withdrawals and acts declared obsolete, 53 uniform acts remained as recommended for approval.
On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws "to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives", including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as "One Form of Action." [See: Constitution and By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, see also Colorado Methods of Practice, West Publishing, Vol. 4, pages 2-3, Authors Comments.]
1939 - ABA gets more involved in approval of uniform law products. Thirty-nine acts are presented to the Board of Governors of the ABA for consideration and approval. During the same year, all acts on aeronautics and motor vehicles are eliminated as well as the Land Registration Act, Child Labor Act of 1930, Uniform Divorce Jurisdiction Act, Firearms Act, Marriage Act and more. Six acts are reclassified as Model acts.
1940 - At start of decade, after deletions, etc., 53 acts out of 93 which had been approved since the group's founding remain on the books. Drafting committee for the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) approved.
1941 - Speaking of the Commercial Code project, the Conference president states: "....this is the most important and the most far reaching project on which the conference has ever embarked." It would take the major part of the next 10 tear period to complete.
1942 - UCC effort begins in earnest with completion of work on the revised Uniform Sales Act.
1943 - Members of the conference participate in drafting committee in Washington, D.C. to work on legislation which the government might desire in connection with the war effort. No new acts.
1944 - Conference receives $150,000 grant from the Falk Foundation of Pittsburgh to support work on the UCC.
1945 - No annual meeting for the first time due to difficulties of civilian transport during the war.
1946 - Falk Foundation increases its support of the UCC with an additional $100,000.
1947 - Uniform Law Conference (ULC) and American Law Institute join in partnership to put all the components together for the UCC. Uniform Divorce Recognition Act approved.
1950 - Approval of the Uniform Marriage License Application Act, Uniform Adoption Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The latter has been one of the most successful ULC products.
1951 - On May 18, during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the UCC was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC's signature product.
One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions), The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction.
America as a bankrupt nation is owned completely by its creditors.
The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments. Do you have a Birth Certificate? They own you too.
1952 - Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure approved---first venture of the Conference into this area of the law.
1953 - Pennsylvania the first state to enact the UCC. Uniform Rules of Evidence adopted.
1954 - Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act approved.
1956 - Gift to Minors Act approved. Will be adopted in every state. For the first time, ULC enters the field of international law.
1957 - Massachusetts becomes second state to enact the UCC, after revisions by the Editorial Board.
1958 - Uniform Securities Act approved.
1960 - Uniform Paternity Act passed. by 1960, UCC enacted in Kentucky, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
1961 - Permanent Editorial Board on the UCC formed---8 more states pass UCC. Constitution amended to provide that all members of Conference must be members of the bar.
1962 - Four more states adopt UCC, including New York. Probate Code project approved.
1963 - Third comprehensive law project approved, on retail installment sales, consumer credit, small loans and usury. Eleven more UCC states. William H. Renquist begins term as commissioner from Arizona; serves until 1968.
1964 - Special Committee of Uniform Divorce and Marriage laws recommends that a study of divorce law be authorized and that funds be sought. One more UCC state.
1965 - Divorce and Marriage Law committee instructed to commence drafting if funds can be obtained for the project. Thirteen more UCC states.
1966 - Five more UCC states.
1968 - Much of annual meeting devoted to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Uniform Probate Code ---two projects nearing completion. By 1968, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the UCC---only exception being Louisiana. A big year. Other developments in 1968: the Consumer Credit Code is approved as well as revisions to the Anatomical Gift Act, Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and revisions to URESA.
1969 - Probate Code approved. Preliminary analysis of the uniform marriage and divorce legislation distributed.
1970 - Controlled Substances Act and Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act approved.
1971 - Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Act approved.
1972 - Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Disposition of Community Property Rights At Death Act and UMVARA, the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act approved.
1973 - Uniform Parentage Act supersedes Paternity Act. Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act approved.
1974 - Conference approves Rules of Criminal Procedure and Eminent Domain Code. Louisiana, the only state not to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code due to difficulties in reconciling its provisions with those of the Civil Code, adopts Articles 1,3,4,5,7, and 8.
1975 - Uniform Land Transactions Act approved.
1976 - Major revision of the Uniform Partnership Act approved; also Uniform Simplification of Land Transfers and Uniform Class Action Acts.
1978 - Uniform Brain Death and Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act approved.
1979 - Uniform Trade Secrets and Durable Power of Attorney acts among those approved.
1980 - Determination of Death Act supersedes 1978 Brain Death Act. Uniform Planned Community Act, Model Real Estate Time-Share Act and Model Periodic Payment of Judgments Act also adopted.
1981 - Two important updated acts approved: new Model State Administration Procedure and Unclaimed Property Acts. Also two new acts: the Model Real Estate Cooperative Act and the Uniform Conservation Easement Act.
1982 - Uniform Condominium and Planned Community Acts and Model Real Estate Cooperative Act combined into the Uniform Common Interest Ownership act.
The enumerated, specified, and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. This was the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between Actions At Law and Suits in Equity, this CHANGE WOULD ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY." (See: Federal Rules of Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17. Also see Federalist Papers, No. 83, Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress, Oct. 14th, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms, July 16, 1775, Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)
1983 - Uniform Marital Property Act and Uniform Premarital agreement Act approved. Uniform Transfers to Minors Act replaces the uniformly enacted Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.
1984 - Uniform Statutory Will Act approved; new Uniform fraudulent Transfer Act supersedes Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1918.
1985 - Uniform Health-Care Information Act, Uniform Land Security Interest act, Uniform Personal Property Leasing Act and Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act approved.
1986 - New drafting effort to revise Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC and draft new provisions begins.
1987 - Approval of the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act approved as well as new Uniform Custodial Trust Act, Uniform Construction Lien Act and Uniform Franchise and Business Opportunities Act. Also revision of Rules of Criminal Procedure.
1988 - Final approval of amendments to the Uniform Securities Act and amendments to Article 6 of the UCC dealing with bulk sales. Conference also approves Uniform Statutory Form Power of Attorney Act and Uniform Punitive and Unknown Fathers Act and takes on the controversial issue of surrogate mother contracts with Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act.
1989 - Article 4A of the UCC, dealing with electronic funds transfers, approved. Also approved: amendments to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, authorizing withdrawal of life support by a surrogate decision maker; the Uniform Pretrial Detention Act, confining violent criminals before trial; the Uniform Non-probate Transfers on Death Act and amendments to Article VI of the Uniform Probate Code.
1990 - Major revision of 1970 Uniform Controlled Substances Act-- the law in 46 jurisdictions-- approved. Substantial revision of UCC Article 3 also approved, as well as an updated Article II of the Uniform Probate Code, to keep pace with current thinking on marital property.
This private corruption of the law has occurred despite the Constitutional responsibility conferred on Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution which states that it is Congress that "makes all Laws."
What does that have to do with anything? Uniform Laws seem to be a good Idea.
Well now, that is a good question. Let us continue.....
An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans
THE COURTS RECOGNIZE ONLY TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY: DEBTORS AND CREDITORS
The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS is very important to understand.
Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else government might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court. It is an equity court, administrating commercial law having a debtor-creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as defined by the Constitution of the United States or any other legal documents before 1938.
All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in ERIE V. THOMPKINS. I'll give you background which led to this decision. There is a terrible FRAUD being perpetrated on all Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. It doesn't just happen once in a while. This fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.
U.S. INC. GOES TO GENEVA 1930's
In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception.
It goes like this: From 1928 -1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don't publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.
Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt's job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the Erie vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as 'The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling the gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 "Trading With The Enemy Act."

ROOSEVELT STACKS SUPREME COURT
It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 - 1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.
There was resistance to Roosevelt's court stacking efforts. Some of the justices tried to warn us that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land. See also The UCC Connection
THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES GOES BANKRUPT
A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the headquarters of the corporation called "The United States").
Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn't have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation" to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States has been taken.
It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her "Creators", the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", Washington D.C., District of Columbia, Feds. and Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office etc. etc. etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the IRS. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide projects, including war.
War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people in her new world order.
THE U.S. INC. DECLARES BANKRUPTCY
The corporate U.S. then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto, BANKRUPTCY was declared for all!
From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states could then rely on the Federal decision and use this decision within the states as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE EMERGES AS LAW OF THE LAND
Ah, Ha, are you beginning to get the picture?
By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be upheld and administered. That's why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedent, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie vs. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th Edition:
"The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966"

The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1938 and 1940, I don't recall, but by the early 40's and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and getting it ready to go on the market. The UCC is the Law Merchant's code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts, and the whole mess under the UCC. That's where the "Uniform" word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia.
It doesn't mean you didn't have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960's, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the Law of the Land. The states fully understood they had to administrate Bankruptcy. Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks after President John F. Kennedy was killed.

YOUR LAWYER'S SECRET OATH???
What was the effect and the significance of Erie vs. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers, who are members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer's guild of Great Britain, created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain.
Since the Erie vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same. It has been reported, that every lawyer in existence, and every lawyer coming up has to take a "secret" oath to support bankruptcy. As Officers of the Court they have sworn to uphold the law as it exists, and as they have been taught. In so doing, not only do the lawyers promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges promise never to reveal who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings (if, indeed, many of them are even aware or know). In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principle of the proceedings. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, then there is no way the defendant is able to know the TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information.
That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will tell you "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."

HIRE A LAWYER?
The problem here is, if you hire a lawyer who is pledged not to reveal the true nature and the cause, how will you ever find out the nature and the cause? YOU WON'T! If the true nature and the cause of the action against you is revealed, it will expose the real creditor from whom this action and cause came. In other words, they will have to name the TRUE creditor. The true creditor will have to state the nature and the cause. The true creditor will have to say "It's a bankruptcy proceeding." The true creditor will have to say, "I'm the creditor and he's the debtor."

That declaration would open the door for you to question "Who the hell are you? How did you get attached to my back and by what vehicle did I promise to become a debtor to you?" In this country, the courts on every level, from the justice of the peace level all the way up...... even into the International law arena, (called the World Court), are administrating the bankruptcy and are pledged not to reveal who the true creditors really are and how you personally became pledged as a party or participant to the corporate United States debt. What would really kill these people off, would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer into the courtroom and present himself as the attorney for THE TRUE CREDITOR, THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. THEN, HAVE THE ATTORNEY PUT INTO THE RECORD THE TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY.

The International Bankers told these various countries that they were now in a state of bankruptcy. The countries had been taken over by the creditor/bankers. And there was no choice, but for all these participating countries to declare bankruptcy. If they didn't agree to declare bankruptcy, the bankers threatened to collapse the economies and thereby put the countries back into the depression like the one from which they were just emerging. The bankers made an offer they couldn't refuse. To review and elaborate: In 1930 there was a world wide depression.
The Bankers said, "Look. You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way." "You just accept the bankruptcy and we'll let you out of the depression. If you don't, you're on your own." So all the countries involved agreed, because they realized that the International bankers had them by the throat. The countries therefore agreed that over a period of several years that they would pass statutes and legislation for the implementation of the bankruptcy in favor of the international bankers.
Now, it would probably be correct to say that the key bankers were the Rothschild's and their agents by way of Rockefeller, by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. Who the bankers were is immaterial. The fact remains that there was an International bankruptcy, and an International conspiracy to cover it up. There was a banking creditor who made the offer; the countries accepted the offer in order to enable the representative countries to continue without revolution and to allow the politicians to remain comfortably in place. Under a delusion of solvency the countries were allowed to continue to operate as though they were solvent; while in fact, the representative countries were bankrupt.

THE SNARE
The bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan. How did they possibly pull this scheme off in the area of real estate? The bankers did it with real estate, the same way they did it in the area of Federal Income Taxes. These Foreign bankers simply and deceptively devised ways and means to con you into declaring yourself as a "CITIZEN" or a "RESIDENT" of the corporate U.S. Remember the corporate United States is Bankrupt per agreement and public policy. After you have been tricked into claiming you are one of their corporate United States Citizens, you are given a social security number which ties you to certain meager "benefits" and "privileges."Then, the bankers con your employer to function as an unpaid tax collector to con you into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040 voluntary agreements.
These slick paper agreements establish your "voluntary" indebtedness to the banker creditor. If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme because you don't like it, the real creditor never has to make an appearance in court to list the true nature and cause of the action which is being brought against you. You end up dealing with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is administrating the bankruptcy to which the government agreed to per the Geneva meetings.
The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the courtroom stand, so you can ask him how he got attached to your back. The system is set up in such a way that the true creditor is protected and never has to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or produce documents. Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law that gives him the right to pledge you (your body and labor) into indebtedness (bondage/servitude).
Why? Because the Geneva agreement in 1930 was done by treaty. The bankruptcy was not done by legislation. The agreement came first; signed in secrecy, THEN Congress began to pass legislation to fulfill the bankruptcy obligation required by the treaty. Legislation being passed by Congress was henceforth and is thereby bankruptcy legislation. When cases came before the courts, the courts could make decisions based on the new controlling law of bankruptcy. It had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Now, any case brought in is under the new bankruptcy law and is not considered as a true constitutional case. It is now a bankrupty case as distinct from, but cleverly disguised as a constitutional case.
THE FRAUD
The members of the Supreme Court, of course, realized what was happening to them and the system of law. The court was being asked to perform in a creditor, debtor bankrupt proceeding to the benefit of the banker creditors. The members of the Supreme Court said, "NO. We will not give you a bankrupt proceeding decision that you can then enforce against everybody; a decision not only effecting corporate Washington D.C. but also having effect within the corporate state governments."

This, by the way, is fraud. It wouldn't be fraud if the government of corporate Washington D.C. and the government of the several corporate states declared bankruptcy then let the people know about the bankruptcy. (Notice: when I say corporate "government" I don't mean you and me. You and I are not the corporate government. The corporate government is the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is a neutral government zone known as the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is where the corporate state is. It is corporate headquarters. Just like corporate Washington D.C. is the seat of the corporate Federal Government. The capital of the corporate state is the seat of the corporate state government. If the corporate Federal Government and her subsidiary corporate state governments want to join forces and declare bankruptcy that's not fraud. This is their corporate business.
However, it is fraud when those two corporate entities declare bankruptcy but do not disclose to you, me, and every other American, that they have so declared bankruptcy.
Further they have not and do not disclose that their intention is to get you and every other American in this country to pledge to pay off their corporate debt to their corporate creditors. The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of Americans, The People.
U.S. INC. IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM PRIVATE AMERICANS
"We the People" who created and signed the contract/compact/agreement/charter of, by, and for the Constitutional Corporation (U.S.) using the trade name of the "United States of America," is a corporate entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the unenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not create the corporation of the United States. The United States Inc. did not create the private natural American people. America and Americans were in existence prior to the creation of the United States Corporation. The United States Corporation has located its U.S. headquarters in Washington D.C.
Virginia State (state territory) gave land to the newly formed United States Corporation. Notice here, we have a state giving something of value (land) to the United States. The United Stales Corporation agreed in the Constitutional contract, to protect the States. Instead, because of their bankruptcy (Corporate U.S. Bankruptcy) this particular U.S. corporation has enslaved the States and the people by deception and at the will of their foreign bankers with whom they have been doing business. Our forefathers gave their lives and property to prevent enslavement.
Today, we are again enslaved. Private natural American people have been tricked, deceived, and set-up to carry the U.S. Inc. perpetual corporate debt under bankruptcy laws. Every time Americans appear in court, the corporate U.S. bankruptcy is being administrated against them without their knowledge and lawful consent. That is FRAUD.
All corporate bankruptcy administration is done by "Public Policy" of by and for the Mother Corporation (U.S. Inc.).
THE MOTHER CORPORATION'S "PUBLIC POLICY"
The corporate bankruptcy is carried out under the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government in corporate Washington D.C. The states use state public policy to carry out Federal public policy of Washington D.C. Public policy and only public policy is being administered against you in the corporate courts today. The public policy that is dictated by all the courts, from the smallest to the most powerful courts in the world, is public policy. This is why I said, in another tape that the Russian people would be enslaved into indebtedness. What will happen is that it will become public policy in Russia to have the people go into joint corporate debt. The Russians will be forced to promise to pay those debts. They will be forced to pay off on those corporate debts. Corporate public policy is the crux of the whole bankruptcy implementation. Corporate public policy is forever a Corporate public policy and the laws that have passed since 1938 are all corporate public policy laws dealing only with corporate public policy. Understand that U.S. corporate public policy is not an American public policy. The public policy is OF, ( belonging to) the United States corporation. This U.S. corporate bankruptcy public policy is not OF (belonging to) America, the Republic.
The Erie vs. Thompkins 1938 case was a decision based upon public policy. All decisions at any level since 1938, have been public policy decisions. All statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures that have been passed, whether civil or criminal, whether it is Federal or State, have all been passed to implement the public policy of bankruptcy. Since 1933, when FDR came into office, he brought in public policy. He established that it was the public policy of the overnment to call in all the gold. It was the public policy of the government to declare a banking holiday. It was the public policy of the Government in Washington D.C., (the Federal Government) to give out government assistance. Public policy operates the same within the states. All Federal court decisions can only be handed down if the states support Federal public policy. The state legal system must be compatible with the Federal legal system.
THE MONKEY-WRENCH
This is why, when people like us go to court without being represented by a lawyer, we throw a monkey-wrench into their corporate administrative proceedings. Why? Because all public policy corporate lawyers are pledged to up-hold public policy, which is the corporate U.S. administration of their corporate bankruptcy. That's why you'll find stamped on many if not all our briefs, "THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED IN ANY OTHER CASE AND IS NOT TO BE REPORTED IN ANY COURTS." The reason for this notation is that when we go in to defend ourselves or file a claim we are not supporting the corporate bankruptcy administration and procedure. The arguments we put forth predate 1938.
We come in with Constitutional law etc. All these early cases support our rights not to be in bankruptcy. However, the corporate court, lawyers, and judges have promised to give no judicial recognition of any case before 1938.
THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS'
CORPORATE PLANTATION
U.S.A. STYLE
Before 1938, the law was not a public policy law. All these old cases were not public law deciding cases. Today, the cases are all decided under corporate public policy. The public policy exists in order to administer the bankruptcy for the benefit of the banker creditors and to protect the banker creditor.
Corporate public policy can allow the creditor to say to the corporate legislatures, "I want a law passed requiring my debtors to wear seat belts. Why? Because I want to be able to milk my debtors for the longest period possible."

It doesn't behoove the creditor to allow all of his labor producing debtors die at an average age 30 years. What would happen to the bankers' lending, interest, penalties, increase, repayment etc., on the entire funding and lending process if the average American life span was only 30 years? Why, the bankers would have to have 2 1/2 times the current consumer population to equal their current take. The bankers would need (instead of 250 million Americans) 600 million or even more. Maybe the bankers would need 2 Billion Americans because the individual can't contract for debt until he/she is 18 or 21 years of age. Therefore, if the average life span is only a 30 year period, the creditor could collect on the debt for only 12 years.
Now, if the bankers can just get people to live an average of 70 years) you are talking a whopping 50 years of indebtedness for which they contract and for which they are forced to pay back with usury/interest. With this situation, the banker creditor can now float loans worth 50 years of potential indebtedness and its payoff with interest in the name of the people, as opposed to 9 to 12 years.
The creditors and their property and their people are well taken care of. The creditor doesn't want the population to decrease per se, unless, it is convenient for the debtor to run up debts in another's name and then liquidate that debtor or that group of debtor people. For example let's consider the AIDS problem today among the black people. What better group to inject AIDS into than the black people?
Read the Strecker Memorandum on AIDS and the World Health Organization connection. This documents their tainted vaccination program in Africa and elsewhere. Why not kill them off? Don't you understand that the blacks as a whole have absorbed all the debt that they can? The blacks have reached the maximum of the debt that they can carry. In fact, they have gone over their limit to pay back. They are now heavily into welfare, public housing, medicaid, medicare, food stamps etc.. Now, the situation is that instead of paying off the creditor, they have become a drain on the creditor. The creditor must now pay them to live and take care of them. What creditor in his right mind wants to spend money on a bunch of people from whom he can't collect any revenue?
The corporate public policy of the corporate United States and the states and the county and of the cities are that YOU must take care of these people. You must provide them with welfare etc. Why? Because when you, as a member of the corporate body politic allow laws to be passed which says the minorities must be taken care of, then the corporate legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these people taken care of. Therefore, when given the chance, the legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these blacks and poor whites to be taken care of and given a chance, therefore, we must raise taxes to fund all these benefits, privileges and opportunities.
This is what these people need to make them socially, politically, and economically equal with everyone else. The legislatures have passed all kinds of statutes providing for huge indebtedness and they float the indebtedness off your backs because you have never gone into court to challenge them by telling them it is not your public policy to assume the debts of other people. On the contrary, all the court decisions coming put, indicate it is the corporate public policy and it is your willingness to support the corporate public policy to pay off these debts.
Remember, "public" means of and for the corporate Government. It does not mean of and for private people. "Public" means corporate government. It is corporate government policy. When they talk about public debt, they are talking about corporate government debt and your presumed pledge against this corporate created debt.
THE REAL ESTATE SNARE
How do they work this scheme in the area of real estate? These banker creeps have made an agreement that it is corporate public policy, that all land (property) be pledged to the creditor to satisfy the debt of the bankruptcy, which the creditor claims under bankruptcy. They get away with this the same way they get away with any other case that is brought before the court, whether it is a traffic ticket, IRS, or whatever.
Here is how it works. You have signed instruments giving information and jurisdiction to the bankers through their agents. The instruments (forms) you signed include, but are not limited to the following: social security registration, use of the social security number, IRS forms, driver license, traffic citation, jury duty, voter registration, using their address, zip code, U.S. postal service, a deed, a mortgage application, etc. etc. The bankers then use that instrument (document) under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as a contract/agreement. These documents are considered promissory contract where you promise to perform. This scheme involves you, without you ever becoming directly in contact or in contract with the true creditor. What's more, you are never informed as to whom that true creditor is and it is never divulged to you the true nature and the true cause of the paperwork that you are filling out.
If you will examine your real estate deed, you will find that you promised to pay taxes to the corporate government. On property you originally acquired through a mortgage, you will notice that the bank never promised to pay taxes. You did. The corporate government at all levels never promised to pay taxes to the creditor. You did.
In tax and collection problems relating to real estate being enforced against you, you will notice that there is no mention in the mortgage or the deed stating the true nature and cause of the action. Since you have made the promise to perform, you get a bill every year for property taxes. You don't realize that the only way they can bill you for taxes is through your own stupidity of agreeing to pay the tax. You volunteered. They took advantage of you, conning you to promise to pay properly taxes. When they send you their bill, they are coming against you for the collection of the promise you made to the creditor.
Now the creditor on the paperwork appears that it is the local bank. The bank has loaned you credit. The bank hasn't loaned you anything. It is not their credit to loan. This is why the bank can't loan credit. There is a credit involved, but not the bank's credit. It is the credit of the International Bankers. The International bankers are making you the loan based upon their operation of bankruptcy claim which they presume to have against you personally as well as your property. Now, let's say you get a tax bill and you decide "I'm not going to pay it." You will find that the courts and the lawyers and the county agencies are set up to protect the true creditor simply by not identifying the creditor. By not being identified as the true creditor, the international banker can make you a credit loan that has no value in reality.
In the case of real property, he claims to loan you the use of your own property for which you pay a tax as rent. He is allowed to do this because you are presumed by statutory law and the banker to be in bankruptcy. This fraud is not revealed because he does not have to make an appearance in court to present and defend his claim. His name is not mentioned in the case.
Let's say you are not aware of your remedies provided for you within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC provides or allows you to dishonor the county's presentment of the tax bill. You don't pay your tax bill. You, therefore, just sit on it and don't do or say anything. A couple of years go by and all of a sudden you are being sent letters to pay up what is owed or else in a certain period of time, your property will be taken from you and put up for tax sale.
Now here is what is interesting........ If you don't pay your tax bill and they contact you asking you to pay it and you don't do it, they will declare that you are in default. It is based on that default, as provided for in the UCC, that they sell your property for the tax (rent).
However, the county never goes into court to put into the record the identification of the real creditor. And the county does not state the true nature and cause of the action against you (bankruptcy action disguised as a tax action). Why? Because, under bankruptcy implementation, they have developed a legal procedure which is based upon your promise to pay. This procedure provides that they don't have to come to the court to get a court order authorizing the sale of your property. Therefore, the real creditor never makes an appearance in court.
The reality is, you are denied any possibility of appearing in court to exercise your right to challenge the creditor. To ask if he became the creditor under "public policy." To ask if it is under "public policy", just what is the "public policy?" And how did you (as an international banker) become "creditor" to me and everyone else in this country (American people). They don't want you to ask the real creditor (the International Bankers), to produce the documents upon which your personal debt is established. If they were forced to go into court, they would have to produce the deed or mortgage showing you knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promised to pay the corporate public debt. You did not knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promise to pay any U.S. Corporate Bankruptcy obligation made in the 1930's.
This would, of course, expose their racket. The fact is, that, there was absolutely no debt connected to you until you agreed to it through their deception and fraud. The deception in a broader sense, permeates the education system and the news media, etc., to sell you on the idea that you are a statutory "U.S. citizen" and "resident of the United States." (INCORPORATED).
YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY
Your property is pledged for the rest of your life upon your signature and your promise to perform is pledged into perpetual debt. The bankers don't even bother to go to court They leave it up to the agencies to administer the agency corporate public policy. It is the public policy of that agency to bill you on your promise to perform. If you don't pay, they follow up on the public policy on notice of default and give you one more chance to pay. Then they proceed to sell the property at a tax auction. They never go to court or appear in court to back up their claim against you. Did any of your government licensed and controlled teachers ever stress that your signature is your most valuable personal property? Did your government teachers ever tell you that any time you sign any document, you should sign it "without prejudice," or with "All Rights Reserved" above your signature. This means you are reserving your God given unalienable rights which cannot be transferred and all other rights for which your forefathers died.
The Corporate U.S.. Government provides, or at best pretends to provide for this reservation of rights under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 1-207 and 1-103. You need more information in this area. It is not in the best interest of the United States Corporate "PUBLIC" schools to teach you about their bankruptcy proceedings and how they have set the snare to Compel you into paying their debt. The Corporate "PUBLIC" schools are strictly designed for their Corporate citizen/subjects. That is. the Corporate U.S.. Public School citizens.
Notice all the emphases on being a "good" Citizen. Basically all their teachers and their students are trained to produce labor and material in exchange for valueless green paper called "money." It is not money, it functions "AS" money. Lawful money must be backed by something of value. Bankers take your labor, services, and material (homes, cars, farms, etc.) in exchange for their valueless corporate paper. This paper is backed only by the "full faith and Confidence of the United States Government"
THE MOTHER CORPORATION.
I do not have faith or confidence in the U.S. BANKRUPT CORPORATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE PERVERTED THEIR Constitutional CHARTER, enslaving the sovereign American people into their bankruptcy obligations. Their fraudulent money laundering process promotes your payment on the corporate government's bankruptcy debt. This debt is mathematically impossible to pay Off. You and your family are in continual financial bondage to the international bankers. They love it so!
Black's Law Dictionary 1990, defines "Money Changers" as: .....business of a banker... today handled by the international departments of banks." Let me think for a moment, what did Christ do to the Money Changers." Oh, Yes, he severely interfered with their activity. Three days later he was crucified. Lincoln was killed for interfering with the money changers. Kennedy was slaughtered for interfering with the money changers.
Let's return to the subject of your property, and the tax sale for not paying property taxes. In this situation under a standard deed (not common law deed) you are actually in default. Not because you understand the default or you like being in default, you just are in default of the tax payment. So they put your property up for sale. At the tax sale, Joe Doe, average American, bids on your property and gets it. Now, there is a procedure he must go through step by step to establish. He is required to give you another chance. You have six months and a day to pay off the default. If, at this time, you pay off the amount the county says you owe, plus penalties, interest, fines, etc., then your property is taken off default status and it is yours to continue to pay taxes on the next year.

THE COVER-UP
There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn't have a lawyer to bring a case before the courts, and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. That is why you can't hire an attorney. An attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.
"TRUST ME"
"I'm Here To Help You."
"I Have The Governments Permission To Practice Law."
"I'm A Member of the Bar."
The attorney is there for one reason. That reason is to make sure the bankruptcy scam (established by the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government) is upheld. The lawyer's will cite no cases for you that will go against the bankruptcy in corporate public policy. Whatever the lawyers do for you is a bunch of Bull Shit. The lawyers have to support the bankruptcy and public policy even at your expense. The lawyers can't go against the corporate Federal Government statutes implementing, protecting and administrating the bankruptcy.
For all cases cited, those in the US Code or the state annotated code or any other source, you may be sure that they are only those selected cases that support the public policy of bankruptcy. The legal system has to work that way. After the last 30-40-50-60 years of cases after cases having been decided based upon upholding the bankruptcy, how could the legal system possibly allow someone to come into court and put in the record substantial information and argument to prove the fraud?
BLOOD IN THE STREETS?
Can you imagine how damaging it would be, if they allowed your case to be cited in another case, or if they allowed the public to examine a copy of your brief that exposes evidence of the fraud? This exposure would render null and void everything for which they have worked so hard. Wouldn't this exposure make the people mad? Wouldn't this exposure mean there would be blood running in the streets? Especially the cities where the poor people have been really taken by this diabolical system. What they are concerned about is that the case never be cited. That goes against the bankruptcy for fear of exposing the bankruptcy and the people will then pick up their guns and shoot the SOB's.
ATTENTION: LAW STUDENT!
You said you wanted to be a lawyer. Well, I hope you've read this carefully, because here is the legal system you're headed to serve, and serve you will. You say you wanted to be a lawyer so you can find out what oath they're taking, in "secret", behind closed doors in solemn preparation for the "business of the court" as judges and lawyers.
Now you know the oath. The oath is simply to uphold the bankruptcy. If you want to be a lawyer and want to make a living as a lawyer, be careful. They will weed you out at the beginning if you don't bring in your paperwork under the bankruptcy procedures. If you try to defend your clients and try to help your clients they will get rid of you. They will pull your license. So you spent all that money and time going to school under the guise of helping people and you're wasting your time. Without a license you can't go into a courtroom. I would think about this if I were you.
THE LAWYERS GUILD CONNECTION
Here is what happens. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain. The American Bar Association is not connected primarily with what happens in any case on the local level. However, when a case leaves the local level, by that is meant, the state court, city court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court; and goes to the appeal's court, it would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of the case. It would seem that the American Bar Association must have an agreement that any action brought on appeal, must be reviewed by the American Bar Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would the American Bar Association, a branch of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothschild's Dynasty, be able to monitor and administer the corporate bankruptcy. It would appear that the American Bar Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any case brought under common law or the constitutional law that would expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that "this case is not to be cited or published." I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the stamp message in such cases. The justice department may be able to do that in Washington D.C.. I can't see where any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or label the case as one not to be cited for future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.
THE BANKRUPTCY ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Now, Mr/Ms. Law Student, if you're still attending classes and you have a good professor, ask him/her about just where the stamp comes from that you've seen on many cases. Just who put it on the paperwork and just who authorized the citation restriction. Just who is tampering with the law. There is one thing certain the creditor and or his agents are watching these cases very carefully. The creditor and his agents must balance their books. When you think of the IRS, be aware that the IRS is an agent of the creditor, the corporate International Bankers. This is just one of the Bankers' state side agencies. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is another agency they use for this country.
This is where all the accounting goes on to keep track of the debt. All the states have to send reports to Washington D.C. Washington D.C. has to send reports to the (GAO). Take a look at your state Comptroller's Annual Report to the Governor of your state. I found it in the library located in the city of the corporate state capital. Look under "Trust Fund" for each state sub-corporation like the state courts, IRS, Banks, Education, etc. you will be amazed at the amount of money being pumped into the Trust Fund from the various Corporate State Departmental Revenues (all revenue is referred to as taxes: fines, fees, licenses, etc.). There are millions and billions of your hard earned worthless federal reserve notes, "dollars", being held in "trust."This money is being siphoned off into the coffers of the International Bankers while the corporate government officials are hounding you for more and more tax dollars.
All this accounting system is NOT so the people will know what is going on. The accounting reports are for the bankers and creditors to keep tabs on just where their collections are coming from. The bankers want to know if the bankruptcy debt payments are coming in and just how much and from what sources. This accounting is the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4. and M5. All this accounting is closely monitored. Maybe every day, but at least once a week. These M's are the reports of the amounts of money in circulation. The amount of debt out there, and the amount of credit out there. The floating of debt in the form of bonds. There are five different categories. This system had to come into existence in order for the creditors to be on top of the bankruptcy at all times. This system allows the creditors to figure out and know exactly what is going on in their domain.
It all makes sense. Don't the bankers hire bill collectors? Creditors hire bill collectors to snoop around do see why you're not paying. They want do know how much you are going to pay so they can figure out how much will be coming in. How much they will collect. They want to know who will pay and who won't.
THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS NOTHING BUT CREDIT AND DEBT. THE WORLD CREDIT UNION
Here is what is going to very quickly happen internationally. All of the governments around the world are going to unite. They will create one big giant credit union for collecting the debt for the International Bankers. We have allowed ourselves do get into this very sad situation, but THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- "State Tamperings with Money Banks" -- Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
WELCOME TO YOUR
NEW WORLD ORDER
This Page on the Web started Dec 7, 1996,
The 55th Anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,
which precipitated the entry of the United States into World War 2.

IN MEMORIAM
Of the many Sovereign Citizens in all wars
Who believed they gave their Oath and their Lives to Defend
The Constitution for the United States against all Enemies,
Both Foreign and Domestic,
In the Preservation of Liberty and Freedom and Justice for All.
Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, December 1996
Mirroring is not Netiquette without the Express Permission of Barefoot
Defending The US Constitution
Click for Barefoot's wish for you this day.
Visit Barefoot's World and Educate Yo'Self
Email Barefoot
On the Web December 9, 1996
Three mighty important things, Pardn'r, LOVE And PEACE and FREEDOM

Friday, November 2, 2012

The Falwell v Flynt Trial (1984)

Asked about his first sexual experience by an interviewer, Reverend Jerry Falwell said, "I never really expected to make it with Mom, but then after she showed all the other guys in town such a good time, I thought 'What the hell!'" Falwell went on to describe a a Campari-fueled sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse near Lynchburg, Virginia.  Neither the incestuous sex nor the interview ever happened, of course.  They sprang from the imagination of a parody writer for Hustler Magazine.  
 
When the "Campari parody ad" appeared in the November 1983 issue of Hustler, the founder of the politically-engaged organization Moral Majority sued, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The trial and appeals that followed would provide great theater, produce a landmark Supreme Court ruling on the First Amendment, and eventually lead to one of the most unlikely of friendships.

Shortly after his discharge from the Navy at age 22, Larry Flynt launched a career in the adult entertainment business that would, within just over a decade, make him one of the nation's best known pornographers.  When recession pushed his string of Ohio-based strip clubs toward bankruptcy in 1974, Flynt turned what had been a black-and-white newsletter called the "Hustler Newsletter" into the most sexually explicit magazine in the United States.  The publication in August 1975 issue of nude photos of Jackie Kennedy Onassis brought attention and dramatically increased sales for Hustler.   Obscenity trials soon followed, including one in Georgia, where Flynt was shot and paralyzed by a white supremacist outraged by photos in Hustler showing an interracial couple. 

Flynt's growing pornography empire also attracted criticism from many religious leaders, including the the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Falwell co-founded the socially conservative and politically active Moral Majority in 1979, an organization that was credited with helping to elect Ronald Reagan the next year.  Falwell promoted an anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-Israel agenda.  He was especially outspoken in his criticism of pornography, which he claimed threatened the moral health of the country.

In August 1983, Flynt and a group of editors and lawyers met in the conference room of Larry Flynt Publications in Los Angeles.  The group debated an idea for an ad parody that had been suggested by a consultant named Michael Salzbury.  Salzbury proposed a parody of the well-known advertisements for Campari, which featured celebrities relating their “first times” (playing on the obvious double-entendre) drinking the popular liqueur.  The parody, as the idea was developed, had Jerry Falwell recounting his “first time,” which turned out not to be not his first taste of Campari, but rather his first sexual encounter—a drunken adventure with his mother in an outhouse.  Falwell’s anti-pornography crusade always made him an inviting target for Hustler satire, and the group was especially enthusiastic about the parody ad because of what they saw as the humorous contrast between the outhouse encounter and the actual lifestyle of the evangelical teetotaler.  In the ad, Falwell is quoted as saying, "We were drunk off our God-fearing asses on Campari...and Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation." At the insistence of legal counsel, the group agreed to place at the bottom of the ad the words: "Ad parody.  Not to be taken seriously."

As he left a Washington, D. C. news conference in November 1983, Falwell was asked by a reporter whether he had seen the parody ad featuring in the latest issue of Hustler. He glanced at the ad and brushed off the reporter’s question.  Back home in Lynchburg later that day, however, Falwell asked a staff member to buy the current issue of the magazine.   Falwell later testified that when he saw the parody ad, “I think I have never been as angry as I was at that moment.”  He never believed, he said, that “human beings could do something like this” and “felt like weeping.”  The most troubling aspect of the satire, according to Falwell, was “the besmirching and defiling of my dear mother's memory.” 

Falwell decided to sue Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine for $45 million.  To raise money for the legal effort, Falwell send out two mailings.  The first, addressed to a half million members of the Moral Majority described the ad parody, while the second mailing to 30,000 “major donors” included (with eight offensive words blacked out) a copy of the actual Campari ad.  Falwell's letter warned readers that "the billion-dollar sex industry, of which Larry Flynt is the self-described leader, is preying on innocent, impressionable children to feed the lust of depraved adults."  The letter concluded with a request: "Will you help me defend myself against the smears and slander of this major pornographic magazine--will you send me a gift of $500 so that we may take up this important legal battle?"  The two letters, plus a third letter sent to 750,000 Old Time Gospel Hour fans, raked in over $717,000 to fund Falwell's lawsuit.

Flynt counter-attacked in two ways.  First, he filed a copyright infringement suit against Falwell for republishing Hustler's Campari ad without permission.  (The suit was later dismissed by a federal district court in California on the grounds that Falwell's use fell within the "fair use" exception under the Copyright Act.)  Second, to add fuel to the fire, Flynt ran the Campari parody ad again--this time in Hustler's March 1984 issue.

Falwell chose Norman Roy Grutman, a flamboyant New York attorney who had previously successfully defended Penthouse Magazine against another suit brought by Falwell, to represent him in his suit against Flynt.  Grutman's "gloves off" style of litigating struck Falwell as just what was needed in a suit against someone he considered a world class scumbag.

Grutman's complaint, filed in federal court the Falwell-friendly Western District of Virginia, alleged three grounds for recovery: (1) the defendants used Falwell's name and likeness for commercial purposes without consent; (2) the defendants defamed Falwell by falsely accusing him of committing incest with his mother; and (3) the defendants intentionally "inflicted emotional distress" on Falwell through their malicious and outrageous publication of the parody ad.  Trial of the case would take place before Chief Judge James Turk.

Allan Isaacman, a Harvard-trained lawyer with a disarming "Huck-Finn-goes-to-law-school-quality"(1) about him, took control of the defense.  (The lawyers for the two parties  did not exactly hit it off.  In his book Lawyers and Thieves, Roy Grutman describes Isaacman as a "feret-faced attorney" with a "sharkskin" 
wardrobe" who "sunk to the level of his client.") Isaacman's basic strategy to was to present the parody ad as nothing more than a simple joke.  Of course, to many people it seemed, it was not clear why it was a joke--what's so funny about incest anyway?  The answer, as Isaacman developed his theme, was that the juxtaposition of a great evangelist with the image of a drunken encounter in an outhouse was obviously farcical and was intended, above all, to make a significant political statement about Falwell's alleged hypocrisy.

A Memorable Deposition
Grutman's pre-trial deposition of Flynt took place in a room at a federal prison in North Carolina, where the pornographer was temporarily residing as the result of a contempt of court conviction.  It came a low point in Flynt's life.  He was paralyzed, depressed, bearded and unkempt, suffering from painful bedsores, and on numerous medications.  Flynt was wearing blue pajamas and handcuffed to his hospital gurney as he rolled in for his deposition. 

What followed ranks as perhaps the most bizarre, vulgar, and self-destructive depositions in legal history.  It began with Flynt claiming or pretending to receive "radio signals."  Flynt interrupted a question from Grutman to transmit a message to an unseen friend over his imaginary radio: "Bravo November, bravo whiskey...Eleven bravo....They know what that means, Bob.  Can you give me an ETA on it?"  Answers damaging to the defense came in rapid succession and Isaacman seemed powerless to stop them, as Flynt responded to Grutman's questions even when his attorney said, "I instruct the witness not to answer that" (at more than one point telling his attorney "to shut up.") 

Flynt seemed eager to take responsibility for the decision to place the parody ad: "Everything that has ever went in Hustler should have had my approval, and anything that went in that id not--the son of a bitch is either dead, got the shit kicked out of him, or dead."  Asked by Grutman whether he had "any information that Reverend Falwell ever committed incest with his mother," Flynt first claimed that the report came from Captain Joe Sivley of the Bureau of Prisons and later stated that he had an affidavit signed by three people from Lynchburg who witnessed the encounter from a nearby house.  He freely admitted that he ran the ad to "settle a score" with Falwell for his criticism of his private life and said he included the small disclaimer at the bottom only at the insistence of his in-house lawyer (David Kahn), who Flynt identified only "that asshole sitting over there."  His goal was "to assassinate" Falwell's integrity.  Flynt claimed the actual content of the ad was a collaborative effort that included the help, among others, of Billy Idol, Yoko Ono, Ted Nugent, and Jimmy Carter.

Asked by Grutman whether he had an aversion to organized religion, Flynt replied, "You better bet your sweet ass I do."  Does that go for the Bible too?  "Goddamn right I do."  Flynt launched into his philosophy of pornography and argued that he had been waging an unappreciated and secret war against child pornography and child molesters.  "What we got to stop doing is we got to stop fucking with the kids, you know," he said in a serious tone.  "When you mess with the kids, we got a special place for you, down here at the Rock."  Flynt said efforts to combat child molesters would be aided if Falwell was kept off the air: "Give him a pack of seed corn and send him to Israel and let him tell them what thou hath said."
The deposition deteriorated, ended with a string of venomous attacks by Flynt on Grutman and his client.  Flynt warned Grutman, "You're all going to be on your knees before we finish here."  He alleged that Falwell had been behind the assassination attempt on him in Georgia and issued a final threat: "I'm no longer settling for psychological pain.  You and Mr. Falwell and the rest of the 'Falwellians' have to crawl back to New Orleans, 'cause I'm the real one."
Alan Isaacman's main focus, as the opening of trial in Virginia loomed, was to get Flynt's off-the-wall deposition thrown out.  Isaacman feared what a jury might do if they watched the angry and self-defeating videotaped performance by his client.  He sought to convince Judge Turk that Flynt the videotape should be ruled inadmissible on the ground that Flynt was, at the time of his deposition, mentally incompetent because he was on medication and in the manic phase of a manic-depressive syndrome.  Grutman countered by arguing that the deposition should be admitted, with the jury free to consider Flynt's mental state in deciding how much weight to apply to his testimony.  After a pre-trial hearing, Judge Turk ruled in Flynt's favor and ordered the deposition excluded, only to reverse himself on the first day of trial.  The jury would see the videotape.

Jerry Falwell Goes to Court

Cover of the November 1983 issue containing the Campari parody ad

On December 4, 1984, Reverend Jerry Falwell settled into the witness stand in Judge Turk's Roanoke, Virginia courtroom.  At Grutman's urging, Falwell described his family's long history in Virginia, dating back to the founding of Lynchburg in 1757.  He told the jury about his father's troubles with alcoholism and said, "Since I became a Christian in 1952, I have been and am a teetotaler."  Falwell described his relationship with his mother as "very, very intimate" and said that she was "a very godly woman, probably the closest to a saint that I have ever known."  After a series of questions that developed Falwell's many ministerial accomplishments, Grutman returned to the subject of Falwell's mother: "Mr. Falwell, specifically, did you and your mother ever commit incest?"  "Absolutely not," Falwell replied. 

Falwell testified about the political activism that had propelled him to become "the second most-admired American behind the president."  Asked whether he "had attempted to influence public opinion against pornography," Falwell answered, "With every breath in my body."  Grutman handed Falwell copies of Hustler magazines and asked him to comment on various cartoons and couplings found in the publication:

Did you and Chief Justice Burger ever engaged in the kind of conduct [sodomy] that is depicted in the December 1983 [cartoon]?
We have not.
Does [this magazine] contain pictures of lesbians?
It does.
Full color?
Full color.
Does it show naked women lewdly exposing themselves?
Yes.
Does it have pictures of interracial sex?
It does....

From his skewering of Hustler generally, Grutman turned his attention to the Campari ad.  Falwell testified that his anger over the ad had lasted "to this present moment."  He described his reaction as the most intense he had ever had in his life.  He admitted that if "Flynt had been nearby, I might have physically reacted."  The ad, according to Falwell, "is the most hurtful, damaging, despicable, low-type personal attack that I can imagine one human being can inflict upon another."

When Larry Flynt took the witness stand on December 6, he looked far different than the man the jury saw in his videotaped deposition.  He looked relaxed and clean-cut in a three-piece suit.  Isaacman asked Flynt to tell the jury how he felt during his unfortunate encounter with Grutman five months earlier:  "I was in terrible pain...and I'd been in solitary confinement for several months, handcuffed to my bed most of the time."  He testified that, under the weight of his paralysis and mounting legal problems, he was suffering from paranoia and manic depression "that can trigger things." 

Turning to the parody ad, Isaacman asked Flynt to explain how he hoped readers would react.  "Well, we wanted to poke fun at Campari for their advertisements, because of the innuendos that they had," Flynt said.  The choice of Falwell for the ad was because "it is very obvious that he wouldn't do any of those things; that they are not true; that it's not to be taken seriously."  The target was all the more appropriate, Flynt argued, because of Falwell's political activities:  "There is a great deal of people in this country, especially the ones that read Hustler magazine, that feel that here should be a separation of church and state.  So, when something like this appears, it will give people a chuckle.  They know it was not intended to defame the Reverend Falwell, his mother, or members of his family, because no one could take it seriously."  Flynt testified that Falwell was "good copy" and that he bore no "personal animosity towards Reverend Falwell." 

In his cross-examination, Grutman began by asking, "Is it the Larry Flynt that we are seeing here today in court the real Larry Flynt, or is the real Larry Flynt the one we saw on the television screen in your June 15 deposition?"  Flynt answered calmly, "I'm more myself today than I was then.  And the reason why I didn't use any obscenities [in my testimony] is I see no reason to offend this jury here."  Grutman's research had turned up a despicable statement in Flynt's past and the attorney wanted the jury to know about it, the better to want to punish him with a hefty award of damages.  "In 1975, did you give an interview in which you said, 'I like to lay beneath a glass coffee table and--."  Isaacman leaped to his feet with an objection, but Grutman continued to shout over him: "and watch my girl shit--."   "I would beg Your Honor, please," Isaacman pleaded.  Judge Turk said, "I'll let him ask the question and then let's move on."  Grutman plowed ahead with Flynt's stomach-turning statement, which included not only an explicit description of excretory functions, but also his"fantasy" about having anal intercourse with ten-year-old paper boys and then slitting their throats with a razor.  Flynt tried gamely to explain the statement as "a bizarre joke that had no more seriousness that the Jerry Falwell parody," but one look at the jury could tell anyone that serious damage had been done to the defense game plan.  Later, Grutman asked Flynt about another interview, one conducted for Vanity Fair in 1984: "Do you remember saying of the Bible, 'This is the biggest piece of shit ever written'?"  Flynt could not recall the statement, but said he could not deny having made it.   

The plaintiffs called a psychiatrist, Dr. Seymour Halleck to the stand.  Dr. Halleck offered his appraisal of what made Flynt tick: "[Flynt] sees himself as a great human being fighting for noble causes and failing to achieve greatness only because of the malice of others.  At other times, he sees himself as a hustler or a prankster who is not really serious about anything....The most basic psychological characteristic of Mr. Flynt is that he thrives on attention and being in the limelight.  The world of plots and counterplots he has created with himself as the central figure is a world in which he cannot be ignored."

The jury heard from other witnesses.  They listened to witnesses, such as conservative U. S. Senator Jesse Helms, vouch for the good character of Jerry Falwell.  An advertising agent for Campari testified that his company had nothing to do with the parody ad and was very upset by it.  A Moral Majority executive confirmed that Falwell was seriously distressed when he first saw the parody ad.  A doctor who treated Flynt testified that he was manic and heavily medicated at the time of his deposition.  Still, in the end, the trial was largely a two-man show: evangelist Jerry Falwell versus pornographer Larry Flynt.

Grutman told the jury in his closing argument that "the eyes of the country are on Roanoke."  The jury had a chance to stand up for decency and civility.  Grutman warned against "letting loose chaos and anarchy."  "Are you," Grutman asked, "going to turn America into the Planet of the Apes"? 

On December 8, Judge Turk instructed the jury on the libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.  He threw out the appropriation claim on the ground that Falwell's name and likeness had not been used to promote a commercial product.  Judge Turk told jurors that for there to be a defamation the defendant must have made false statements about the plaintiff that were "reasonably understood as real facts."  The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, on the other hand, required no such believability; it was enough if the defendant intended to inflict distress on the plaintiff and that his expression was outside accepted bounds of decency.

The jury of eight women and four men returned with their verdict later that day.  The jury concluded that the parody ad could not be understood as factual, and thus Falwell's libel claim failed.  The jury did, however, decide that Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine intended to inflict cause Falwell emotional harm and did so in a way that offended decency.  The jury awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.  Given the judge's instructions, any other verdict would have been a surprise.

On to the Supreme Court

Flynt's defense lawyer, Alan Isaacman

Initial appeal rounds went to Falwell.  A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, unanimously upheld the jury's damage award.  The court relied heavily on Flynt's testimony that he intended through his ad parody "to assassinate" Falwell's character.The full appeals court turned down a request for rehearing en banc on a vote of 6 to 5.  Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a respected conservative jurist, wrote a dissent from the decision not to rehear the case  in which he warned that the precedent may stifle political satire which "tears down facades, deflates stuffed shirts, and unmasks hypocrisy."

Flynt's attorneys, Alan Isaacman and David Carson, filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.  After some initial reluctance caused by the distasteful nature of the publication and parody ad, institutions and organizations supporting a free press came to Hustler's aid in the form of amici briefs.  Among the groups sending arguments to the Supreme Court were The Richmond Times, Reporters Committee for a Free Press, and the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists.  On March 20, 1987, the Court announced that it would hear arguments in Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Falwell.  Free speech supporters saw the case as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to expand upon its assertion of fact (not protected if false, damaging to another's reputation, and made recklessly) / expression of opinion (protected speech) distinction.

On the cold morning of December 2, 1987, spectators began lining up outside the Supreme Court building.  Jerry Falwell and his wife took seats in the front row of the spectator section of the full courtroom.  Ten minutes before arguments were scheduled to begin, Larry Flynt rolled in through a side-entrance.  The eight justices (one seat was vacant at the time) took their seats at the bench.  Chief Justice Rehnquist nodded to Alan Isaacman, standing behind the podium, and announced, "Mr. Isaacman, you may proceed whenever you're ready."

Over the next half-hour of oral argument, attorney Isaacman deftly handled a steady stream of questions from the bench.  Isaacman conceded that the state has an interest in protecting people from emotional distress, but he added, "If Jerry Falwell can sue because he suffered emotional distress, anybody else whose in public life should be able to sue because they suffered emotional distress. And the standard that was used in this case--Does it offend generally accepted standards of decency and morality?--is no standard at all. All it does is allow the punishment of unpopular speech."  Asked what public interest the parody ad could possibly serve, responded: "Hustler has every right to say that somebody who's out there campaigning against it saying don't read our magazine and we're poison on the minds of America and don't engage in sex outside of wedlock and don't drink alcohol. Hustler has every right to say that man is full of B.S. And that's what this ad parody says."

Norman Grutman followed Isaacman to the podium.  Grutman opened his argument with the words, "Deliberate, malicious character assassination is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution."  He struggled with questions from justices about how a clear line might be drawn between the Campari parody ad and other hard-hitting political cartoons and satire.  Grutman suggested: "If the man sets out with the purpose of simply making a legitimate aesthetic, political or some other kind of comment about the person about whom he was writing or drawing, and that is not an outrageous comment, then there's no liability."  Justice Scalia and several other justices appeared unconvinced.  Scalia asked: "I don't know, maybe you haven't looked at the same political cartoons that I have, but some of them, and a long tradition of this, not just in this country but back into English history, I mean, politicians depicted as horrible looking beasts, and you talk about portraying someone as committing some immoral act. I would be very surprised if there were not a number of cartoons depicting one or another political figure as at least the piano player in a bordello."  Justice O'Connor also was concerned with providing clear guidance to satirists of all sorts: "In today's world, people don't want to have to take these things to a jury. They want to have some kind of a rule to follow so that when they utter it or write it or draw it in the first place, they're comfortable in the knowledge that it isn't going to subject them to a suit."  Grutman had no real answer.

On February 24, 1988, Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the decision of a unanimous Supreme Court reversing the jury's award of damages to Jerry Falwell.  Rehnquist wrote:
At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern....[I]n the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. '"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred..." Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.
Epilogue
In January 1997, thirteen years after their legal confrontation in Roanoke, Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell appeared together on The Larry King Show.  The conversation was unexpectedly civil and shortly afterwards, Falwell paid a surprise visit to Flynt in his Beverly Hills office.  In an article published shortly after Reverend Falwell's death in 2007, Larry Flynt described the relationship that developed between the two old adversaries:
...[O]ut of nowhere my secretary buzzes me, saying, "Jerry Falwell is here to see you." I was shocked, but I said, "Send him in." We talked for two hours, with the latest issues of Hustler neatly stacked on my desk in front of him. He suggested that we go around the country debating, and I agreed. We went to colleges, debating moral issues and 1st Amendment issues — what's "proper," what's not and why.

In the years that followed and up until his death, he'd come to see me every time he was in California. We'd have interesting philosophical conversations. We'd exchange personal Christmas cards. He'd show me pictures of his grandchildren. I was with him in Florida once when he complained about his health and his weight, so I suggested that he go on a diet that had worked for me....

My mother always told me that no matter how repugnant you find a person, when you meet them face to face you will always find something about them to like. The more I got to know Falwell, the more I began to see that his public portrayals were caricatures of himself. There was a dichotomy between the real Falwell and the one he showed the public.

He was definitely selling brimstone religion and would do anything to add another member to his mailing list. But in the end, I knew what he was selling, and he knew what I was selling, and we found a way to communicate....

I'll never admire him for his views or his opinions. To this day, I'm not sure if his television embrace was meant to mend fences, to show himself to the public as a generous and forgiving preacher or merely to make me uneasy, but the ultimate result was one I never expected and was just as shocking a turn to me as was winning that famous Supreme Court case: We became friends. (2)

Footnotes:
(1) Smolla, Rodney, Jerry Falwell v Larry Flynt: The First Amendment on Trial (1988), p. 18.
(2)  Flynt, Larry, Los Angeles Times, "My Friend, Jerry Falwell" (May 20, 2007)