The following excerpts were condensed from a video interview Jan 2019 hosted by Arnie Rosner.
Government stepped outside the bounds [Clearfield Doctrine], and therefore stepped outside their sovereignty and entered the realm of a private man where they have no more standing or status than you or I, which leads us into what six individuals did to correct that through a lawful and long-standing Arbitration Process when there is a conflict between entities.
In that sense, it is an acceptance of the contractual offer. In this case it would be an acceptance of the Constitution as a contractual-bounds, upon proof of claim that the authorities, processes, procedures and interactions that one party is using are explicitly permitted by the contractual-bounds. In this case the Constitution.
Five men and one woman decided to pose this to the federal government. This was taken against the three branches of government because there is conspiracy between the three to violate the contractual terms, wherein congress will pass un/non constitutional laws, processes and procedures or interactions, the executive will enforce it, and the judiciary will uphold it, which in fact would be a conspiracy among the three branches, and being three branches you would always go after the head of those branches because the principal is always responsible for his agents.
In this case, it was Donald John Trump, John Glover Roberts, Orrin Hatch. It started with Paul Ryan and he left so it was transferred to Nancy Pelosi, and Matthew George Whitaker as representative of the United States or as counsel. In actuality, they are all agents of foreign power acting through the United States, which is the actual principal in this matter.
“Okay, we’ll accept your offer that you’re government but now you need to prove to us these specific things you’re doing. In these specific instances, interactions, processes and procedures prove to us that those are explicitly permitted by the Contract.”
It was pointed out in approximately 570 points and some of those had several points within them. This is a dispute resolution normally conducted between people. If you and I had a dispute and you said ‘I can do that because the Contract says so” I would say “Okay, show me where in the Contract that it says you can do this, this and this.” If you couldn’t’ you would be in violation. Same concept here, except some people think you can’t do that to a government, and the argument was made that we’ll accept you as government as long as you prove you can do these things.
And so, those six individuals set forth many pages of facts that said prove you can do it. If government can do what they’re doing, they should have no problem producing that under oath, under penalty of perjury and under full liability. Anything that is honorable would have no problem doing that.
It was set up as a counter offer that if you can’t provide explicit proof that what you are doing in these specific instances, each and every one individually is contractually compliant, then this is how we’re going to settle this matter. It’s really an acceptance upon your proof of claim, and a counter offer.
If you cannot prove your claim then the counter offer kicks in. The counter offer is:
If you can’t do that then we’re going to go to a third party and let the third party settle this dispute. The third party is not in government, doesn’t sit in a black robe sit six feet off the ground. It would be an actual independent entity that has no ties to either. That’s about as fair as you can get.
Those terms were set out explicitly. They had to answer each and every point. Just one default on one point means there was a breach. That breach was harm, and we would set forth a specific remedy that would make those six individuals whole. This case was actually on behalf of all the people of America under the old Qui Tam authority, which is on behalf of the king and yourself. For those who don’t understand, the kings are supposed to be the American people, the sovereign American people.
We gave them ten days to answer. When they didn’t respond with proof of their claim, we specifically set forth the terms of the private process, which would be an Arbitration process. It used to be called Private Dispute Resolution, and is recognized within their construct here as well as internationally. There is an international treaty for Arbitration that’s protected. Arbitration is one of the most ancient practices of man, and they had to allow it within their construct. There was no choice.
[For your information. The "breach of contract" case initiated by the six individuals against top key members/players of the purported legislative, judicial and executive branches through a lawful and legal avenue known as 'Private Law', is sanctioned by Congress, has been in existence since the beginning of America and before that, as an avenue to be used for seeking remedy for grievances.
Although this 'Private Law' has been purposely well hidden from the American People under massive unlawful and politically driven statutes, it remains STILL today available to the American people.]
At the end of that time period they were given an offer to settle which said: Okay, here’s what you have failed to provide. Here are the facts of the matter. Here is the harm you have caused, and here’s the general remedy we are seeking on behalf of those who wish to access it.
The general remedy that would make the people whole, based upon the breaches of the Contract, would simply be to grant you immunity from their construct in the sense that the majority of their interactions, what they call a crime of some sort; if you don’t have registration that’s a ticket. If you don’t have a license it’s a ticket or jail. If you had a little bag of weed you’re going to jail. So, the only remedy that could make you whole would be immunity from their fictional construct because the whole construct is in breach of the Original contract.
The next step would be that they have to keep their hands out of your pockets because the majority of taxes, and the majority of people, are not involved in actual commerce that would involve the importation or exportation of products, which is the only way they would have an authority to dip their hands into your pockets. We were asking for the general remedy of exemption from any and all taxes, state, local and national.
For a list of BENEFITS see Page 6 under The General REMEDY being sought so as to make the Undersigned and Beneficiaries whole.
In case you are unaware, the legislative branches whether it be your county, city, state or federal are actually the highest courts in this nation under Article 3 Section 2, which is the Blackstone Commentaries. These high tribunals have the authority to grant these remedies and if you go to http://loc.gov and look at the Statutes at Large through the early 1800s, you will see this process was used quite extensively by the people. More so than courts to obtain remedy when the government caused them harm. This has precedent. This was utilized even in England and previous to England you could always go to the sovereign and ask for remedy and he could grant it by a private act.
Essentially, members of the legislature and the senate have always had the power to do this, and it was incumbent upon the people to exercise that right and privilege they had to this remedy.
Some Americans love what is here right now because they are receiving a benefit from it or they’re being paid by it, or their family member is receiving a benefit or being paid by it. A lot of them want it and we’re in no way infringing on their ability to do that. They can still have their construct but the only remedy when we catch you breaching the Contract is to leave us alone. It’s a very reasonable remedy. It doesn’t give you anything more than what you would have had if these interactions never happened.
Every American who ‘opts in’ has the potential to BENEFIT under the Remedy and under the Contract.
December 7, 2018 Conditional Acceptance for Value upon Proof of Claim J3:16fGsltwthghobS Served on President Donald Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts, Senator Orrin Hatch, Rep. Paul Ryan, Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. http://hudok.info/files/2015/5727/0147/Proof_of_Claim_fGsltwthghobS...
December 28, 2018 Opportunity To Cure J3:16fGsltwthghobS Served on President Trump, Justice Roberts, Orrin Hatch, Paul Ryan, Matthew Whitaker. Opportunity To Cure wi Deliver Conf. optimized.pdf
January 8, 2019 Dispute Negotiation J3:16fGsltwthghobS Served on President Trump, Justice Roberts, Senator Hatch, Delegate Pelosi, and Matthew George Whitaker. 2019_01_08 Dispute Negotiation wi Affidavits Reduced.pdf
When the Marquis de Lafayette speaks of “natural and imprescriptible rights”, those civil liberties are endowed by our creator and cannot be rightfully be removed by any regime.
The Arbitration process can be applied in other countries. Watch for details and a 'call to action' closer to scheduled Arbitration Aug 2019.
Please inform others because with full autonomy you are free to live in peace, and advance solutions. Thank you.
Doreen A Agostino
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
Sent via hardwired computer.
All wireless turned off to safeguard life.