Monday, December 1, 2014

Casper Update - November 29, 2014
Sat. 11-29-14
As WE have often said, WE don’t know everything. For your discernment Mr. Allen Painter of Sedona, Arizona responds to our update yesterday as follows. His correspondence is posted with his permission.

(By the way, between Sedona and Flagstaff Arizona lies OAK CREEK CANYON one of the most beautiful places in America. If you have the chance, don’t miss it).


​( wendy says: there is something Spiritual about's very a special place.)

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Alan Painter wrote:


I just read your most recent posting, below. While I am mostly in agreement with your characterization of what is going in America, there are a few things I want to call your attention to.

You made mention below of the following:

“Why do you think the lady who prepared Obama’s fraudulent Birth Certificate and posted it on the Internet has been suppressed/oppressed after admitting publicly what she had done, and never mind his fraudulent Social Security Number?”
“…the Constitution will hang by a silk thread.”
“our Nation/Republic.”
“… our original organic Constitution….”
“…returning to the form of Government given us by our founders, a Constitutional Republic.”
“… having replaced our Constitutional Republic form of Government.”
You seem to be pretty well grounded when speaking about the cabal and what they are up to and the repercussions of their machinations. However, when you speak of government, the things that caught my eye that are listed above, you seem to be a bit misinformed.

Someone may have gotten into some serious trouble for drawing up a fraudulent birth certificate. However, why are the courts ruling in favor of Obama regarding said certificate? It is because those cases always revolve around his alleged lack of qualifications for office. The point that is constantly missed is that he was elected (by the Electoral College) to the Office of President of the United States of America, the executive presidency of the Confederacy. The qualifications of Art. II § 1 Cl. 5 are for the Office of President, a separate office. Did you get that? The qualifications are not for the Office he was elected to, and the people did not elect him. Presidential elections are a total fraud, no matter how the votes are counted, because the people don’t elect an executive President of the Confederacy; the Electoral College does.

Then the President Elect takes the Article II §1 Cl. 8 oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. That phrase means to preserve, protect and defend the “composition” of federal territory. “Constitution”, in this particular context, means “composition” or “make-up”. And that oath should be taken by the appointed President of the United States, the administrator President of federal territory. But I’m getting off track.

It should be noted, then, that the fraudulence of the birth certificate has nothing to do with the qualifications for an office Obama was not elected to. It's one thing to go after him for fraud; it's another to go after him for lack of qualifications for an Office he does not hold. Orly Taitz and Leo Donofrio are mixing apples and oranges. There is nothing that says he must be American born to hold the Office of President of the United States of America (the Office he is elected to). Not one damn thing.

As to “our original organic Constitution” and “our Constitutional Republic form of government”, neither one is ours. Ours is the Confederacy, pursuant to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. You may believe that the Articles has been replaced by the Constitution of 1787, but this is the BIG LIE that was foisted on us just after Washington assumed office. If you look in the front pages of a hard copy of Volume 1 of United States Code (containing the first five Titles) you will find a list of the four organic laws of the United States of America: the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776; the Articles of Confederation, November 15, 1777; the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787; and the Constitution of September 17, 1787. If it is listed as organic law, necessarily is it still in force and effect.

The first two organic laws are the freedom documents, and the second two put us right back under the control of Britain and the Vatican.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1783 provided for a temporary government of the Northwest territories for the express purpose of effecting taxation (in the territory only) to pay the Revolutionary War debts. Because one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was ‘taxation without our consent’ (that came down to us as ‘taxation without representation’), the drafters in the Confederacy Congress provided in the Northwest Ordinance for Representatives from the territorial States (not to be confused with the “free and independent” states) to the Confederacy Congress. This provided for taxation with representation—in the territorial States. Those Representatives could participate in deliberations in the Confederacy Congress regarding anything to do with the territorial States, but they had no voting power. Interestingly, the Northwest Ordinance provides for “constitutional alteration”. Were they planning for the Constitution? (Of course they were.)

Then, along comes the Constitution of 1787 that amends (not repeals) the Articles of Confederation and makes permanent the territorial governance. Only this time, Representatives to the United States Congress are voting members. You see, the “more perfect Union”, spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution of 1787, is really a second Union—of “free and independent” states with territorial States. (The Northwest Ordinance provided that the territorial States “were forever part of the United States of America”.)

The Representatives to the Congress of the United States is the first clue (of many) that the Constitution and the United States government is strictly for territorial governance (having nothing to do with the “free and independent” states). The problem is that said territorial governance has jumped the boundary into the “free and independent” states. There is no legitimate taxation (or, for that matter, regulation of the people’s activities) in the “free and independent” states. All of that technically can exist only in federal territory. The United States government is entirely out of control.

The Republic, then, is the territorial United States, and the United States is the collective territories owned by or subject to the exclusive (proprietary) jurisdiction of the United States of America. “Proprietary” power is the power of the owner over his/her/its property. The United States of America (the Confederacy of the Articles of Confederation) owns the territories. Said Republic is a Mason-designed Roman Republic in the likeness of the Roman Empire, of which it is part and parcel.

Thus, neither the Constitution nor the Republic are ours. The Articles and Confederacy are ours. The Republic with its Constitutional governance is a limited dictatorship. The Bill of Rights, which is part and parcel of the Constitution, applies only in federal territory. In other words, the Bill of Rights provides you limited (listed and granted) rights/privileges when you are on federal territory (the owner’s property). When in the “free and independent” states, one is supposed to have unlimited, unalienable (non-transferable) rights as memorialized (not granted) in the Declaration of Independence.

When it comes to the Constitution, the so-called founding fathers did us no favors. As to your allusion to the Constitution hanging by a silk thread, I hope that thread snaps irretrievably. We need to scrap the Constitution and its limited, federal (Romanized) dictatorship. Let us return to the Articles of Confederation and redraft it for today’s world.

This is a very brief glimpse into what is a very long and involved story. For more of Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera’s profound research go to:

Alan Painter, Sedona, Arizona

​wendy adds this from Wikipedia:

Natural-born-citizen clause
From Wikipedia,

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.
Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encycl...
Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the offic...

View on Preview by Yahoo