Terminating Treaties; A Right To Self-Determination

The Colonial Rule is at its End; The Lakota Indians Declared their Independence-and  So Should You!
(Rations for the landless, on their Land Cartoon 1890- Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/95522197/ )

“The old Lakota was wise. He knew that a man’s heart away from Nature becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon lead to a lack of respect for humans too.”
– Luther Standing Bear, chief of the Oglala Lakota, 1905-1939

On December 17, 2007, a delegation of Lakota people went to Washington. They declared independence. They called it “the latest step in the longest running legal battle” in history.

It’s not a cessation, they said. It’s a lawful “unilateral withdrawal” from treaty obligations permitted under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

At the time, American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Russell Means said:

“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us.”

“We offer citizenship to anyone provided they renounce their US citizenship.”

“United States colonial rule is at an end.”

Signed documents were delivered to the State Department. Sovereignty was declared. The Republic of Lakota was established. It’s based on the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. It created the Great Lakota (Sioux) Nation. It states in part:

“The territory of the Sioux or Dahcotah Nation, commencing the mouth of the White Earth River, on the Missouri River; thence in a southwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River; thence up the north fork of the Platte River to a point known as the Red Buts, or where the road leaves the river; thence along the range of mountains known as the Black Hills, to the head-waters of Heart River; thence down Heart River to its mouth; and thence down the Missouri River to the place of beginning.”

It gave Lakota people portions of northern Nebraska, half of South Dakota, one-fourth of North Dakota, one-fifth of Montana, and another 20% of Wyoming.

Unilateral withdrawal from all treaties and agreements became policy. America never honored its own. More on that below.

Earlier events led to the 2007 declaration. In 1974, 5,000 International Indian Treaty Council delegates, representing 97 North and South American Indigenous People, signed a Declaration of Continuing Independence.

It was a “Manifesto representing the wisdom of thousands of people, the Ancestors, and the Great Mystery supports the rights of Indigenous Nations to live free and to take whatever actions are necessary for sovereignty.”

Numerous elders approved it. They represented ancestors born to live free. They gave delegates two mandates:

(1) Gain international recognition. In September 2007, the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights affirmed it.

(2) “We must always remember that we were once a free People. If we don’t, we shall cease to be Lakota.”

The right to return to their original free and independent status was asserted. On December 17, 2007, they declared it formally.

In United States v. Sioux Nation (1980), the Supreme Court upheld a $105 million award to eight Sioux tribes. It was compensation for lost land. It was lawlessly taken.

The Court, however, denied what Sioux people most wanted – their land back. As a result, they refused the money. They reasserted their sovereign rights.

Thirty-two years of compound interest makes the 1980 award worth $400 million today. It’s a tiny fraction of what Sioux people lost. They demand and deserve what’s rightfully theirs. America’s highest court has no sovereignty over their rights. Neither does political Washington.

“Hunting Indians in Florida with Bloodhounds.” Lithograph published in 1848.  Library of Congress

see trail narratives: http://www.johnhorse.com/trail/03/a/05.5.htm

The Republic of Lakota described ongoing genocide as follows:

(1) Mortality

Life expectancy for Lakota men is less than 44 years. It’s the lowest of all sovereign countries. It’s the highest in America. Infant mortality is threefold higher than the US average. Diseases are a major problem. “Cancer is now at epidemic proportions.”

Teenage suicide is150% higher than America’s average. One-fourth of Lakota children are fostered or adopted by non-Native people. Doing so destroys their identity and culture. Ward Churchill calls it killing the Indian, saving the man.

(2) Disease

Tuberculosis is 800% higher than America’s average. Cervical cancer is fivefold higher. Diabetes is eight times the national average. The Federal Commodity Food Program provides high-sugar foods. They contribute to poor health.

(3) Poverty

Annual median income is $2,600 – $3,500. Poverty affects 97% of Lakotans. Many families can’t afford essentials most people take for granted. In winter, many use ovens for heat. Simple luxuries are unheard of. Life is hard, merciless, punishing, and unrelenting.

(4) Unemployment

It’s 80% or higher. Government corruption, cronyism, and indifference destroy normal living opportunities.

(5) Housing

In winter, elderly people die from hypothermia. They freeze to death for lack of heat. One-third of homes lack clean water and sewage. About 40% have no electricity. About 60% of families have no telephone.

Another 60% of homes are infected with potentially fatal black molds. On average, 17 people reside in each household. Many have two to three rooms. Some homes built for six to eight people have up to 30 in them.

(6) Drugs and Alcohol

Over half of adults battle addiction and disease. Alcoholism affects 90% of families. Two known methamphetamine labs operate. Authorities haven’t closed them.

(7) Incarceration

Indian children imprisonment exceed whites by 40%. Native People comprise 2% of South Dakota’s population. They account for 21% of those imprisoned.

Indians have the second highest state prison incarceration rate in America. Most live on federal reservations. Less than 2% are where states have jurisdiction.

(8) Culture

It’s threatened with extinction. It’s federal policy to destroy it. Only 14% of Lakotans speak their language. It’s not shared inter-generationally.

The average fluent Lakotan speaker is 65 years old. In another generation or less, perhaps few or none will remain. Lakotan language skills aren’t allowed or taught in US government schools. Nor is much of anything about native history and culture. America wants it destroyed and forgotten.

The Sand Creek Massacre (1864).
At least 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho, mostly noncombatant women, children and elders, are
brutally murdered by Colorado militia led by Colonel
John Chivington.

Lakotan struggle began with the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. They call it “fantasy” US history. France sold America 530 million Native land acres for $15 million. Lakotans owned part of it. They and other Native people weren’t consulted.

They’ve been systematically ignored and violated. From 1778 – 1871, Washington negotiated 372 treaties. Their provisions were systematically spurned.

America’s winning the West involved invading, encroaching, stealing, and occupying their lands. That’s how imperialism works. It’s the same everywhere.

Throughout the 19th century (and earlier), Washington engaged in military, legal, and political battles against Native Peoples. Their rights were contemptuously denied. They were displaced and exterminated. That’s how today’s America was created.

The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie was systematically violated. So were provisions of all other treaties. From 1866 – 1868, Washington let the Bozeman trail go through the “Heart of the Lakota Nation.”

It was a short cut to Montana’s gold fields. Military forts were built on stolen land along its route. Doing so violated 1851 treaty provisions. Battles ensued. Washington negotiated peace. The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty followed. Native People thought they won. Victory was pyrrhic and illusory.

The Supreme Court’s 1883 ex parte Crow Dog decision made no difference. The Court recognized Lakotah freedom and independence. It ruled that tribes held exclusive jurisdiction over their internal affairs. It didn’t matter.

The transcontinental railroad facilitated development, land and resource theft.

In 1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act. It extended US jurisdiction into Lakota territory. The same year, the last of the great buffalo herds were exterminated. At one time, they numbered 60 million. Native People relied on them for food.

In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act (the Dawes Act). It ended communal ownership of reservation lands. It distributed 160-acre “allotments” to individual Indians. Tribes lost millions of acres. Wealthy ranchers exploit them today.

In 1888, Congress began prohibiting Indian Spiritual and Prayer Ceremonies. It was part of destroying Native culture. In 1891, a Commissioner of Indian Affairs was authorized. It was to assure Native People obeyed white man’s laws.

Many more abuses followed. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Supreme Court extralegally recognized near absolute plenary congressional power over Indian affairs.

“Louis Firetail (Sioux, Crow Creek), wearing tribal clothing, in American history class, Hampton Institute, Hampton, Virginia”; late 1890s. From the Library of Congress.http://jubiloemancipationcentury.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-american-indian-at-hampton-institute-virginia/

It let US authorities steal tribal lands and resources freely. They did so on the pretext of fulfilling federal responsibilities.

Doing so abrogated fundamental indigenous rights unilaterally. The ruling was used to violate hundreds of treaties. Like other Native Peoples, Lakotans were grievously harmed.

Their sacred Black Hills were stolen. So were valued resources on them. Lakotans want back what’s rightfully theirs. Their ancestors thought the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty granted them victory. They were wrong.

Yet in 1904, even after Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, some believed the Treaty was “the only instance in the history of the United States where the government has gone to war and afterwards negotiated a peace conceding everything demanded by the enemy and exacting nothing in return.”

Until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, Native People got what no one had the right to deny them in the first place. In fact, rights afforded them nominally never existed in fact.

The entire history of Native People in America reflects horrific struggles lost. From 1492 to today, they experienced promises made and broken. Disenfranchized people remain. Most are bereft of hope.

On reservations or assimilated, they’re out of sight and mind. Once they lived peacefully on their own land. White settlers changed things. Western civilization destroyed their way of life. There’s nothing civilized about it.

They’re either ignored, mocked, or demonized in films and society. They’re called drunks, beasts, primitives, and savages. America always was a white supremacist society.

Rich powerful elites run it. Native People and most others don’t matter. They’re systematically used and abused. They’re not served. It’s the American way.

Source:

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/95522197/

http://rense.com/general95/sioux-nation-leaves-us.html

http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/poisoners-of-the-wells-the-jewish-role-in-the-native-american-genocide-by-rebel-of-oz/

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.no/2007_11_01_archive.html

Jus et fraus nu…

Jus et fraus nunquam cohabitant.

Right and fraud never abide together.

 

In the first edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, published in 1891, Henry Campbell remarked that the book contained “a complete collection of legal maxims”, adding: “These have not been grouped in one body, but distributed in their proper alphabetical order through the book, This is believed to be the more convenient arrangement”. 

Well 100 years later and the new editors of the Black Law Dictionary has firmly placed it in the back of the book. Where is should never be seen, nor compared with Todays, legal interpretations, fore we might discover its real meaning.

The present Editor, Bryan A. Garner, states, “spreading latin sentences throughout the book is decidedly inconvenient for most dictionary users today.” Perhaps, for regular dictionaries, but certainly not legal, were its initial language was Latin. 

 

 

I AM not a ‘Person’, are you?…Legalese

Legalese: le·gal·esen.

The specialized vocabulary of the legal profession, especially when considered to be complex or abstruse.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legalese

Note: The below satirical look at legal terminology was not written by me. However, upon discovering it I thought it served as an important tool for others to view and consider. And its pretty funny too!

I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human

I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.

Some would say that I am a ‘natural’ person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?

To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word ‘person’.

Person –The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.”

Person –Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines ‘person’ as follows: “In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”

Person –Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a “natural” person). 2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). –

Person –Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are “persons” in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. –

Person, noun. per’sn. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]

legal person –Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity – legal fiction – of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn’t it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

Well….. I am not “the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation”. I am not “labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” So, I cannot be a ‘person’ under this part of the definition.

The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an “individual”. Black’s Law Dictionary also defines a person as a “human being,” which they define by stating “(i.e. natural person)”. So let’s first check to see if I am an “individual”.

Individual –Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines “individual” as follows: “As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.”

Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a ‘person’, and since ‘individual’ denotes a single ‘person’ as distinguished from a group or class, I can’t be an ‘individual’ under this definition either. But I see the term ‘natural person’ used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a ‘natural’ person, since I know I am not an ‘artificial’ one.

I could not find the term ‘Natural person’ defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word ‘natural’ for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person…

Natural –Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines ‘Natural’ as follows: “Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word “artificial”. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal”; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.”

Wow, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word ‘man’ means), or by influences of civilization? I don’t think so. Am I ‘wild’, or ‘untutored’? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word ‘artificial’, it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a ‘natural’ person, under this definition of the word ‘natural’. So the term ‘natural person’ cannot apply to me.

Black’s Law Dictionary also used the term ‘human being’, and although Black’s defined it as a ‘natural person’, maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a ‘human being’. ‘Human’ or ‘human being’ does not appear to have a ‘legal’ definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster’s Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.

Human –Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘human’ as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] “Sprung of humans that inhabit earth.” …To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words ‘Hue’ (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can’t go there, because the word would then mean ‘colored man’!

Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I’m not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word ‘man’ through Webster’s because there appears to be no legal definition for ‘man’.

Man –Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘man’ as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.

Oh! Oh! Well, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an ‘individual’, so I cannot be considered ‘of the human race’; and since I’m not of the human race, I can’t be ‘a human being’, and I’ve also been shown that I’m not ‘a person’ either.

When I was younger, I remember filling out forms, which had the word ‘Caucasian’, listed for race (they don’t seem to use that definition any more for some reason). I was always told that this was the word for me to use since I had white skin. (It is actually pinkish, and some is tanned, with mostly white next to the tanned, but I was still told I was a ‘Caucasian’). So back to the definitions of ‘Caucasian”.

Caucasian –Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, defines ‘Caucasian’ as follows: Of or pertaining to the white race.

Well, I guess that makes some sense, since I have always held myself to be ‘white’, but this is really not a very descriptive definition, so let’s see what an ‘older’ Black’s Law Dictionary has to say, if anything (they have a tendency to change the meaning of words in the new dictionaries for some reason).

Caucasian –Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, defines “Caucasian’ As follows: Pertaining to the white race, to which belong the greater part of European nations and those of western Asia. The term is inapplicable to denote families or stocks inhabiting Europe and speaking either the so-called Aryan or Semitic languages.

That’s interesting, it appears that ‘white racist Aryan’ groups, like ‘Aryan Nations’ types, or those speaking Aryan, are not even ‘Caucasians’ under this definition, so they can’t be from the ‘White’ Race (I wonder if they know that). Neither are the people who call themselves Jews, and speak a form of Hebrew (which appears to be derived from the older ‘Semitic’ language referred to in Black’s Law Dictionary).

Back to Noah’s Dictionary to see if he has a vernacular definition of the word ‘Caucasian’.

Caucasian –Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘Caucasian’ as follows: Anyone belonging to the Indo-European race, and the white races originating near Mount Caucasus.

OK, here is my Conclusion: There may be some beings that are ‘persons’ and some of them are ‘individuals’, and some ‘Natural persons’ do exist, of this I have no doubt, I’ve met some of them. There are also many that I believe are ‘Humans’, or ‘Human beings’, these beings seem to exist all over this globe. However…

My kinfolk came from Western Europe, so I must have come from one of the European Nations. I am also white (I use the term loosely), so by definition I must be a ‘Caucasian’. Since I am a Caucasian, I must have come from, or be a member of one of the white races originating near Mount Caucasus. I am a male of my race, so I must conclude that I am a ‘Caucasian male’. I am also a follower of the Scriptural Messiah, commonly called a Christian. I am a living breathing being, on the soil. Therefore I must conclude that I am a living breathing Christian Caucasian (White) male, in other words, I should be called a ‘Living Breathing Caucasian Christian Male’……. or an ‘LBCCM’ – Cool – Ok, now where is that Mount Caucasus, and why would my Christian ‘White’ Race be originating from the area near that mountain called Mount Caucasus ………Hummmmmmmmmm??

---

Source: http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/Iamnotaperson.html

The Queen that Never Was

Landmark Case Stymied Legal System

“If everyone began using this defense tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts, in the United States, Australia, Africa or any other region that has been “Colonized”, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks- if not days!”

READ THIS STORY! and LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW (below)

Use this document in ANY Court case against you, Lawful Challenge Document: Challenge.doc.

by Debra Siddons

For those of you who have been following the John Anthony Hill (JAH) Case, it is great to be able to share that he was acquitted, on the 12th of May 2011, of the ridiculous and politically-motivated charge of attempting to “pervert the course of justice”.  For those of you less familiar with this landmark case, John Anthony Hill is the Producer of the documentary film “7/7 Ripple Effect”.

There are two very important precedents that were established with this case that need to be studied in detail.  There was a preliminary argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based on two distinct points.  The first point being she was knowingly, and with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus has never been lawfully crowned.  There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending  (see below) to be the monarch for over 58 years. In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract, requiring the monarch’s signature.  Which brings us to the second point.

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God.  This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign’s Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract.  Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.

The very first time that she gave “royal assent” to any piece of man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.  To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times, which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT.  She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.

So Who ARE the Real Heirs?
Eadgyth, a Saxon Queen,  married one of the most powerful men in Europe,  pictured with husband, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I,  who one of the oldest members of the English Royal Family.

Pretender: Did you know Pretender was a very REAL and legal term used off and on since the 3rd Century? What I found most interesting is the definition of the word itself. Read more at:  A Legacy of Lies

All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or “her majesty’s” courts, which means every judge draws their authority from her.  All cases brought by the state are “Regina vs. Xxxxxxx”, which means they are all brought in the name of the queen.  So if she isn’t really the monarch, then she doesn’t have the authority or the jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else.  And neither do any of “her majesty’s” courts or judges.

Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the monarch.  It is a question of their own authority, so they are obviously not impartial to the outcome.  That is why the ONLY way the question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by a jury.  And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Elizabeth.

No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to request a jury trial.  No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause. That doesn’t mean they won’t try, it only means that when they do, they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at John Anthony Hill’s trial) and that their decision is immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen’s arrest.  The fact that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.

That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case.  If everyone began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to its knees in a matter of weeks if not days. The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the Laws of God.

These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.

To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God’s Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God’s Laws with judges roles clearly defined.
Whilst E2  is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.

The Scottish Declaration of Independence:

The Declaration of Arbroath was sent to the Pope in 1320, six years after the battle of Bannockburn. King Edward II had refused to make peace with Scotland and the Pope had not recognised Robert the Bruce as King of Scotland.

This letter (which later became the Scottish Declaration)  asserts that the Scots who had the “Stone of Destiny” (“Lia Fail”) were connected with the ancient people Egypt. Robert the Bruce,  outline the Scots history and royal bloodline, claim ancestry to ancient egypt. Tells of the royal  ancient Egyptians who  dwelt in Spain for a time (during an  exodus); who eventually settled the Islands (Scotland, Ireland, Ise of Mann, Hibernia) and have remained in those parts (expanding North) through an unbroken lineage.

See: Moor’s of the Highlands…My Race is Royal

Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn’t know. We know now.
For those of you in the United States who may be thinking “hey, we aren’t a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?” all you really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand for the British Accreditation Registry.  It doesn’t matter whether it is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head of the BAR.

So Thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all know a peaceful way to bring the system down.  If enough people ACT and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this insanity and injustice.  All that is required now is for YOU to spread the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can begin immediately.  Or you can watch the last remnants of your freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their “New World Order”.
For additional details about this bullet-proof defence, please visit: http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm#crimes

By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second precedent set during this landmark case.

While the official reason for this trial was to address this trumped-up and frivolous charge of attempting to “pervert the course of justice”, the real reason for this trial was so the authorities could punish John Anthony Hill for making the “7/7 Ripple Effect” which, in less than an hour and using strictly mainstream media reports, completely dismantles the official government conspiracy theory.  The film is so credible that even the prosecution at the trial, after showing it in its entirety to the jurors, admitted that the film was made in such a way that it “changes the minds of people who see it.”  That’s how powerful the truth really is.

“Its only when everybody knows who’s really doing these things, do we have a way of stopping them. They are mass-murderers and need to be brought to justice.”

This was the first time this information was shown at an official proceeding and the results were impressive.  At least 83% of the jurors felt the film accurately depicted what happened in London on July 7th, 2005 and that John Anthony Hill did the right thing.  For those unfamiliar with the case, JAH forwarded copies of the “7/7 Ripple Effect” to the Kingston Crown court in 2008 in the hope of correcting misleading statements made by the judge and the QC at the outset of the first trial of the supposed “7/7 helpers” (who were also found not guilty).

John Anthony Hill was also able to enter into the official record his testimony about what happened on September 11th, 2001 in the United States and that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flag attacks.  He went on to show the jurors the now infamous BBC report of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) by Jane Standley on 9/11/2001.  She reported the collapse 25 minutes before it actually occurred, and with the building clearly visible and still standing in the window behind Jane Standley’s left shoulder, leaving no doubt that the BBC had foreknowledge of the event.

As a result of the “7/7 Ripple Effect” being shown to the jurors by the prosecution and John Anthony Hill’s testimony about 9/11, the truth that those two events were false flag attacks and that the mainstream media is nothing more than a government propaganda machine is now officially on record.

And the “Not Guilty” verdict by the jury is a ringing endorsement of that official record.
This case brings with it a New Hope and the opportunity for a new beginning, where liberty, justice, and peace aren’t just nice sounding words, but a reality.  This could be heaven on earth instead of the hell we have let it become by allowing all of this evil to grow up around us.  Just as John Anthony Hill has shown us by example, all it takes is a dauntless faith that good will always triumph over evil and the courage to take action to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost.

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” –  Edmund Bruke

Red Ice Radio Interview with John Anthony Hall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-tVEZIe5kY

Source:
For more details about this extraordinary case and the trial itself, please visit the following links:
http://mtrial.org http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

 http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2011/05/12/muaddib-acquitted/

John Anthony Hall’s Website: http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html

http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm?#crimes

Philosophers Stone: http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2011/06/john-anthony-hill-77-ripple-effect-the-arrest-trial-verdict/

——————————-
REMOVE ADS

Your Life Has Value

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.
What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.
And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

― Howard Zinn (Zen)

BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT

THE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the man who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh.”

How can one pleas, if they “Do Not Understand the Nature and Cause of the Charges”? And if one is coerced to enter a plea, then that plea would have to be “Non assumpsit, Without prejudice”…a plea by which Defendant avers that “he did not undertake” or promise as alleged by the plaintiff with “no rights…waived”. — Black’s Law 6th Ed.
“The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last-ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross-examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
– United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 540 (District Court, M.D. PA. 1947)

Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of  the system.

The individual Rights guaranteed by  Constitutions can be compromised or ignored by Governments. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last-ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.” [Emphasis added]

KEY: Notice the verdict’s confrontational language: “fighting”, “combat”, and most surprising, “belligerent”. Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being “passive” or “ignorant”? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be “belligerent” IN COURT…?

Clearly, we must DO SOMETHING,  as Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Ignorance makes the public more “manageable”. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand control (to easily kill); at the expense of the citizen’s Rights, they have a vested interest in the public’s ignorance and consequent apathy.

Learn to answer a question with a question. The master asks the question, the slave answers.

Example:

“What is your name? My mother calls me “daughter dear”. Relax and have fun with these devils, play the game and learn their techniques. They are sick, so be careful. But if you came back to help, consider it “just a part of the play” and Enjoy!

Remember that All Education offers is better techniques for control.

So Simple Even a Child OverSTANDS!

POSTLIMINIUM- Take Back Your Land!

 (The above depiction of an autochthonous being, Enslaved in his own Land.) The look of bewilderment on his face says it all, “I was just helping you understand our Customs, Culture, our Way with Nature- and THIS is how you thank me?”

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/postliminium/

Postliminium Law & Legal Definition

// //

Postliminium is a term of public international law. The term invalidates all illegitimate acts that an occupant may have performed on a given territory after its recapture by the legitimate sovereign. For example, if an occupant has sold a private or public property when the land was under occupation of an enemy alien, the original owner can reclaim the property when the land is recaptured without paying any compensation. Postliminium also means the rule by which persons captured in war return to their original status when resorted to the jurisdiction of their own country.

————————————————————————–

Read more: Black’s Law Dictionary – Free Online Legal Dictionary

The emergence of military occupation as a distinct phenomenon was bound up with considerations of justice. Those seeking its deepest historical roots tended to trace it back to the Roman right of postliminium, that is, to the ‘legal principle or right by virtue of which a person taken captive in war, upon his recapture or his return to his own country, was restored to his former civil status’. As even many of those who cited this origin noted, the comparison of the modern conception of occupation with this Roman right relied upon a ‘somewhat distant analogy’. The attraction of the term and the source lay in the authority of Roman law and the analogy with the returning sovereign anxious to assert his former status, though the application of the doctrine to the sovereign as well as the citizen was a later development. The right of postliminium was consequently elaborated in terms of what should happen at the end of occupation; that could not be determined without some judgement upon which acts of the occupier, or acts performed under the authority of the occupier, were to be recognised as valid. Justice and the rights which it secures were not regarded as wholly suspended. Unlike the captive Roman, the inhabitants of occupied territory did not become slaves, they were not assumed to have lost their title to property nor were their relations with each other dissolved.

The Law Dictionary

Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online 2nd Ed.

Read more: Black’s Law Dictionary – Free Online Legal Dictionary

Lat. In the civil- law. A doctrine or fiction of the law by which the restoration of a person to auy status or right formerly possessed by him was considered as relating back to tlie time of his original loss or deprivation; particularly in the case of one who, having been takeu prisoner in war, and having escaped aud returned to Home, was regarded, by the aid of this fiction, as having never been abroad, and was thereby reinstated in all his rights. Inst. 1, 12, 5. The term is also applied, iu international law, to the recapture of property takeu by au enemy, aud its consequent restoration to its original owner. Postliminium fingit eum qui captus est in civitate semper fuisse. Postliminy feigns that he who has been captured has never left the state. Inst. 1, 12, 5; Dig. 4′J, 51

Read more: What is POSTLIMINIUM? definition of POSTLIMINIUM (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Postliminium

The principle of postliminium, as a part of public international law, is a specific version of the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur, providing for the invalidity of all illegitimate acts that an occupant may have performed on a given territory after its recapture by the legitimate sovereign. Therefo…
Found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postliminium

—————————————————————-

Postliminium

Article by George Long, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College
on pp949‑951 of

with notes from, William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

POSTLIMI′NIUM, JUS POSTLIMI′NII “There are,” says Pomponius (Dig. 49 tit. 15 s14), “two kinds of postliminium, for a man may either return himself or recover something.” Postliminium is further defined by Paulus (Dig. 49 tit. 15 s19) to be the “right of recovering a lost thing from an extraneus and of its being restored to its former status, which right has been established between us (the Romans) and free people and kings by usage and laws (moribus ac legibus); for what we have lost in war or even out of war, if we recover it, we are said to recover postliminio; and this usage has been introduced by natural equity, in order that he who was wrongfully detained by strangers, should recover his former rights on returning to his own territories (in fines suos).” Again Paulus says, “a man seems to have entered our territory (in fines nostros intraverit); as a foundation is laid for a Postliminium (sicuti admittitur) (?)1 when he has gone beyond our territories (ubi fines nostros excessit). But if a man has come into a state in alliance (socia) or friendship with Rome, or has come to a King in alliance or friendship with Rome, he appears to have forthwith returned by Postliminium, because he then first begins to be safe under the name of the Roman state.” These extracts are made for the purpose of clearing up the Etymology of this word, as to which there was a difference of opinion (Cic. Top. 8). The explanation of Scaevola, as given by Cicero, has reference to the etymology of the word, post and limen: “what has been lost by us from its own limen, and then has afterwards (post) returned to the same limen, seems to have returned by Postliminium.” According to this explanation, the limen was the boundary or limit within which the thing was under the authority of Rome and an object of Roman law. A recent writer (Goettling, Geschichte der Röm. Staatsverfassung, p117) suggests that Postliminium must be viewed in a sense analogous to Pomoerium. There is a fanciful explanation of this matter by Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 5) in his answer to the question, Why are p950those who have been falsely reported to have died in a foreign land, not received into the house through the door, in case of their return, but let down through an opening in the roof?

If a Roman citizen during war came into the power of an enemy, he sustained a diminutio capitis maxima, and all his civil rights were in abeyance. Being captured by the enemy, he became a slave; but his rights over his children, if he had any, were not destroyed, but were said to be in abeyance (pendere) by virtue of the Jus Postliminii: when he returned, his children were again in his power: and if he died in captivity, they became sui juris. Whether their condition as sui juris dated from the time of the captivity or of the death, was a disputed matter (Gaius, I.129); but Ulpian, who wrote after Gaius, declares that in such case he must be considered to have died, when he was made captive; and this is certainly the true deduction from the premises. In the case of a filius or nepos being made a captive, the parental power was suspended (in suspenso). If the son returned, he obtained his civic rights and the father resumed his parental power; which is the case mentioned in the Digest (49 tit. 15 s14). As to a wife, the matter was different: the husband did not recover his wife jure postliminii, but the marriage was renewed by consent. This rule of law involves the doctrine, that if a husband was captured by the enemy, his marriage, if any then existed, was dissolved. If a Roman was ransomed by another person, he became free, but he was in the nature of a pledge to the ransomer, and the Jus Postliminii had no effect till he had paid the ransom money.

Sometimes by an act of the state a man was given up bound to an enemy; and if the enemy would not receive him, it was a question whether he had the Jus Postliminii. This was the case with Sp. Postumius who was given up to the Samnites, and with C. Hostilius Mancinus who was given up to the Numantines; but the better opinion was that they had no Jus Postliminii (Cic. De Or. I.40, De Off. III.30, Top. 8, <!– Pro Caecina, c34<!––>; Dig. 49 tit. 15 s4; 50 tit. 7 s17): and Mancinus was restored to his civic rights by a Lex (Dig. 50 tit. 7 s17).

Cicero (Pro Balbo, c12) uses the word Postliminium in a different sense; for he applies it to the case of a man who had, by his own voluntary act, ceased to be a citizen of the state, and subsequently resumed his original rights by Postliminium.

It appears that the Jus Postliminii was founded on the fiction of the captive having never been absent from home; a fiction which was of easy application, for as the captive during his absence could not do any legal act, the interval of captivity was a period of legal non-activity, which was terminated by his showing himself again.

The Romans acknowledged capture in war as the source of ownership in other nations, as they claimed it in their own case. Accordingly things taken by the enemy lost their Roman owners; but when they were recovered, they reverted to their original owners. This was the case with land that had been occupied by the enemy, and with the following moveables, which are enumerated by Cicero as Res Postliminii (Top. 8), “homo (that is slaves), navis, mulus clitellarius, equus, equa quae fraena recipere solet” (cf. Festus, s.v. Postliminium<!–FESTUS–>). Arms were not Res Postliminii, for it was a maxim that they could not be honourably lost.

The recovery above, referred to, seems to mean the recovery by the Roman state or by the original owner. If an individual recaptured from an enemy what had belonged to a Roman citizen, it would be consistent that we should suppose that the thing recaptured was made his own by the act of capture; but if it was a res postliminii, this might not be the case. If a thing, as a slave, was ransomed by a person not the owner, the owner could not have it till he had paid the ransom: but it does not appear to be stated how the matter was settled, if a Roman citizen recaptured property (of the class res postliminii) that had belonged to another Roman citizen. This apparent difficulty may perhaps be solved thus: in time of war no Roman citizen could individually be considered as acting on his own behalf under any circumstances, and therefore whatever he did was the act of the State. It is a remark of Labeo (Dig. 49 tit. 15 s28), “Si quid bello captum est, in praeda est, non postliminio redit;” and Pomponius (Dig. 49 tit. 15 s20) states, that if the enemy is expelled from Roman lands, the lands return to their former owners, being neither considered public land nor praeda; in making which remark he evidently assumes the general doctrine laid down by Labeo. Paulus also, in his remark on Labeo’s rule of law, merely mentions an exception to the rule, which is of a peculiar kind. If then anything taken in war was booty (praeda), to what did the Jus Postliminii apply? It applied at least to all that was restored by treaty or was included in the terms of surrender, and slaves no doubt were a very important part of all such things as were captured or lost in time of war; and they were things that could be easily identified, and restored to their owners. It also applied to a slave who escaped from the enemy and returned to his master. The maxim “quae res hostiles apud nos sunt, occupantium fiunt” (Dig. 40 tit. 1 s51) has no reference to capture from the enemy, as it sometimes seems to be supposed (Mühlenbruch, Doct. Pand.p242).

It may be objected that the explanation of one difficulty, that has been already suggested, raises another. According to this explanation, if a man in time of war recaptured his own slave, it would be praeda, and he would not at once recover the ownership, as above supposed. The answer is, that it may be so, and that this matter of Postliminium, particularly as regards things, waits for a careful investigation. As a general rule all moveables belonging to an enemy, which were captured by a Roman army, were Praeda, apparently not the property of the individual soldier who happened to lay his hands on them, but the property of the state or at least of the army. Now the difficulty is to ascertain whether all moveables so taken were Praeda, except Res Postliminii; or whether all things so taken were Praeda, Res Postliminii included. In the former case, the Res Postliminii would be the property of the owner when he could prove them to have been his, as in the case mentioned by Livy (V.16): in the latter, when a thing had become Praeda, it had lost its capacity (if we may so speak) of being a Res Postliminii. The distinction here made is a fundamental one. The difficulty partly arises from the expression of Labeo above quoted, Si p951quid &c., where the Florentine reading has been followed. But Bynkershoek (Op. Omn. I. p76) amends the reading into Si quod, &c., the propriety of which may be doubted. [Praeda.]

If a man made a will before he was taken captive, and afterwards returned, the will was good jure postliminii. If he died in captivity, the will was good by the Lex Cornelia. The law of Postliminium applied to time of peace as well as war, when the circumstances were such that the person or the thing could become the property of another nation (Dig. 49 tit. 15 s5), as for instance of a nation that had neither an amicitia, hospitium, nor a foedus with Rome; for such might be the relation of a nation to Rome, and yet it might not be Hostis. A nation was not Hostis, in the later acceptation of that term, till the Romans had declared war against it, or the nation had declared war against Rome. Robbers and Pirates were not hostes, and a person who was captured by them did not become a slave, and therefore had no need of the Jus Postliminii. There are some remarks on Postliminium in Walter, Geschichte des Röm. Rechts, p50, and the notes, 1st ed.

Legalese: Defense of Others

You live under a regime called the rule of law. In law, particular words are specifically defined and this is different to people’s understanding of the word.  

Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed:

Defense of Others, (1942) A Justification defense available if one harms or threatens another when defending a third person. See: JUSTIFICATION (2). [Cases: Assault and Battery-69; Homicide-758.]

Justification, n (14c) 1. A lawful or sufficient reason for one’s acts or omissions; and fact that prevents an at from being wrongful. “. a showing, in court, of a sufficient reason why a defendant acted in a way that in the absence of the reason, would constitute the offense with which the defendant is charged. * Under the model Penal Code, the defendant must show that the harm or evil that resulted from taking the action was less than the harm or evil that the law creating the offense charged was seeking to prevent. Model Penal Code 3.02. – Also termed, Justification defense; necessity defense.

Is It Really Satire? (PUBLIC LAW 105–85)

PUBLIC LAW 105–85—NOV. 18, 1997 111 STAT. 1915

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR
TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.
(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not
conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.
(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) PRIOR NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after
the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of
plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department
of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving
the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent
or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives a report
setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment
or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-
day period beginning on the date such report is received by those
committees.
(e) BIOLOGICAL AGENT DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘‘biological agent’’ means any micro-organism (including bacteria,
viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance,
and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized
component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance,
whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable
of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a
human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or
materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
(f) REPORT AND CERTIFICATION.—Section 1703(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (50 U.S.C. 1523(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(9) A description of any program involving the testing
of biological or chemical agents on human subjects that was
carried out by the Department of Defense during the period
covered by the report, together with—
‘‘(A) a detailed justification for the testing;
‘‘(B) a detailed explanation of the purposes of the
testing;
‘‘(C) a description of each chemical or biological agent
tested; and
‘‘(D) the Secretary’s certification that informed consent
to the testing was obtained from each human subject in
advance of the testing on that subject.’’.
(g) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISION OF LAW.—Section 808
of the Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act,
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1520), is repealed.

source:

Link below, on page 287

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/1998NDAA.pdf

http://www.defense.gov/

Missing…

Below are families accounts of events that lead to their worst nightmare, the disappearance of their child. But could the very people they all entrusted with the save return of their loved ones, be the very ones responsible?

After reading the accounts, I would like you to look at the video at the end. Think about what was said that may not have been fully understood during a time of trauma, and shock. There’s Always a common denominator.

Without a Trace: The Disappearance of Amy Billig—A Mother’s Search for Justice by Greg Aunapu

The story of the unsuccessful search for Amy Billig, who disappeared in 1974. A good, solid and painstakingly detailed (as well as very compassionate) retelling of the story, with cooperation from Amy’s mother Susan. The desperate efforts Susan—who has recently died—made to find her only daughter are heartrending. The author himself knew Amy slightly when he was a child. Although the real story has no conclusion, given that Amy is still missing, Aunapu is able to wrap up the book well by giving his own, very plausible theory on what happened to her.

Twilight Of Innocence: The Disappearance Of Beverly Potts
by James Jessen Badal

A good history of the 1951 disappearance of Beverly Potts, published after the fiftieth anniversary of the day she vanished. This book goes into painstaking, at times almost tedious, detail about Beverly’s disappearance and all the raised hopes and false leads afterwards. It has several good photographs of Beverly which I plan to scan. It also presents good personality portraits of the people involved: Beverly, her family, her best friend, and the investigators in her case. The book does a good wrap-up at the end in spite of the enduring mystery, telling what happened to all the characters in the decades after 1951, and then giving the author’s own theory on the cause of Beverly’s disappearance. I finished reading this book with a profound sense of frustration, given Badal’s theory that Beverly was killed by someone she knew, probably someone on her own street, and that she may well still be on that street. A good, solid account and worth buying. It’s fairly short (the second-shortest of the books on the list so far) and could be read in a day or two.

Without Trace: On the Trail of New Zealand Missing Persons
by Scott Bainbridge

Not for sale in the United States, this book covers sixteen cases of mysterious disappearances from New Zealand dating back as far as the 1950s. The chapters are about ten to twenty pages each in length and are usually, but not always, illustrated with black and white photos. I was impressed by the author’s ability to pack so much information into these relatively short essays. He interviewed many of the parties involved and some of the information in this book can be found nowhere else. If this selection of cases is anything to judge by, New Zealand disappearances can be quite as weird as those in the United States. In the case of Cynthia Grierson-Jackson for instance, the police found a lone, naked woman’s leg that was probably hers. But one leg looks much like any other, they never found the rest of the body, and the leg was never conclusively identified. Any missing persons/true crime buff would find this book intriguing. I only wish the author had included law enforcement contact numbers to submit tips.

After Etan: the Missing Child Case that Held America Captive by Lisa Cohen

Reporter Lisa Cohen, who’s been covering the Etan Patz disappearance for years now, has put together a very impressive account of the investigation with all its twists and turns. Though the book covers thirty years, the story never drags, and I stayed up and sacrificed precious sleep to get through it, although I knew already how it ended — or didn’t end, as it were. Etan Patz has never been found and the prime suspect in his disappearance, a thoroughly creepy pedophile named Jose Antonio Ramos, has never been charged in his case. The first half of the book mainly focuses on the pain of Etan’s parents, Stan and Julie, and their struggle to keep their own sanity and provide a normal life for their two remaining children. It’s a very rare and intimate window into how a family copes with having a missing child. The second half of the story focuses more on Jose Antonio Ramos and the quest by a dedicated federal prosecutor, Stuart GraBois, to bring Ramos to justice for the crimes he’s committed against children. GraBois continues to lobby for charges in Etan’s case, and I hope this book will spur that effort along.

This is a must-read for those interested in the Patz case and the phenomenon of missing children in general. Though it’s 400 pages, it felt like a much shorter book to me. The details and the snappy journalistic writing style moved it along. I don’t think it could have been any better written.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that the author gave me a copy of this book for free.)

The Empty Robe: the Story of the Disappearance of Judge Crater by Stella Crater

Told in the words of his wife, this is the story of the infamous disappearance of Judge Joseph Crater back in 1931. He was never located. Stella Crater wrote a slim but solid account of the circumstances surrounding her husband’s disappearance; the facts she gave seem to be accurate, as they match up with other accounts I have read. More importantly in my view, Stella gives an excellent portrait of her husband’s personality and her own, and as you read about what happened to her during the search you come to grips with common problems in left-behind families that most people don’t think about: for instance, she suffered numerous financial problems after her husband vanished because his income had of course stopped and most of their assets were in his name.

The primary thing that strikes me about this book, however, is Stella’s immense capacity for self-delusion and blind faith. It’s really rather sad. She goes out of her way to assure the reader that her husband—whom she obviously adored—was an honest and honorable man in all aspects of his life and that he had never been unfaithful to her. She is absolutely sure of all this, in spite of ample evidence of Judge Crater’s extramarital affairs and political corruption and in spite of the fact that, prior to his disappearance, Stella really knew very little about his finances or his business life. She didn’t even find out he had been appointed to the state Supreme Court until she read it in the newspapers after the induction ceremony. This book is definitely worth reading for the characterization alone, it you can find it. There is only one other full-length book about Joseph Crater’s disappearance, Richard Tofel’s Vanishing Point; it is reviewed below.

Missing: Missing Without Trace in Ireland by Barry Cummins

As the title indicates, this is a group of case studies of several women and children who have disappeared without a trace in Ireland and Northern Ireland. While the writing is rather dry, the individual cases are very detailed and the author also includes personal information about the missing people and their families, which makes them come to life for the reader.

My only real objection is that Cummins invariably declares that the people he is writing about have been murdered. The book jacket, for instance, mentions “Annie McCarrick who was murdered in the Dublin-Wicklow mountains.” Annie’s remains have never been found, no suspects have been arrested, and there are no witnesses and no hard evidence to indicate that she is in fact dead, let alone murdered. Granted, she probably was, but the assumptions about the missing people’s fates seriously detract from the author’s credibility. Still, in spite of this the book’s details making it worth looking at.

A Rip in Heaven: a Memoir of Murder and Its Aftermath by Jeanine Cummins

Considering that this book is about the brutal gang rape and murder of the author’s two cousins, it is an extremely balanced and thoughtful account, much like Ann Rule’s work. Julie and Robin Kerry were thrown off a bridge in Missouri in 1991; Robin’s body was never found. Their cousin, Jeanine Cummins’s brother Tom, was with them and was also shoved off the bridge, but survived and later testified against the killers. There are detailed word portraits of each of the main characters in the story—the book was much more about Robin, Kerry and Tom than it was about the killers, and pictures of the killers were not even included in the photo centerfold. Tom was initially suspected of killing his cousins and was actually charged with their murders, but was quickly released. Cummins is able to convincingly explain how a combination of trauma, sleep deprivation and inappropriate police interrogation tactics caused Tom to fail a lie detector test and make an incriminating statement (I would hardly call it a confession). It is unfortunate that to this day, some people believe he was responsible for the girls’ deaths.

I really have to give Cummins credit for not trying to demonize the murderers. They are/were violent and dangerous men; the sheer brutality of their crimes showed this and needed no further embellishment. The only complaint I have about this book is that it sort of ended in the thick of things, with one of the killers being granted yet another stay of execution, without any explanation as to what eventually happened. This is a very good memoir, well-written and researched and as objective as we have any right to expect it to be.

Sunk Without a Sound: The Tragic Colorado River Honeymoon of Glen and Bessie Hyde
by Brad Dimock

This book is quite exceptional on this list, and in the genre of mystery stories in general, because Dimock actually attempted to recreate the setting of Glen and Bessie‘s disappearances. Both professional boaters, Dimock and his wife made a sweep scow like the Hydes’ boat, as reconstructed from photographs, and rafted down the same rivers they did to get a feeling of what it was like. Dimock’s experience on the river no doubt contributed to the conclusions he reached about Bessie and Glen’s disappearances.

Thoroughly researched and packed with photographs of Glen, Bessie, their family members and other people involved in their story, Sunk Without a Sound is a real gem of a book. Dimock provides extensive biographical history on the Hydes, maps of their routes, and quoted reminiscences from those who knew them and from Glen and Bessie’s own letters and notes. Most importantly, Dimock is a good myth-destroyer. By sweeping all the extraneous campfire gossip aside, he enables the reader to see as well as is possible what must have happened to Glen and Bessie. The old adage about how the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one definitely applies here, and I write this with a certain sadness, for I grew fond of the Hydes as I read about their lives. I highly recommend this book, to mystery buffs, historians and outdoor lovers alike.

Clueless in New England: The Unsolved Disappearances of Paula Welden, Connie Smith and Katherine Hull by Michael C. Dooling NEW!

The author attempts to tie the 1946 disappearance of Paula Welden and the 1952 disappearance of Connie Smith with an earlier case, that of Katherine Hull in 1936. Katherine was 22 when she disappeared from Lebanon Springs, New York. Her skeletal remains were found in a nearby wooded area seven years later, and for lack of evidence to the contrary the death was ruled accidental. Dooling believes one serial killer was responsible in all three young women’s cases. Although I’m unconvinced — the evidence just isn’t there — this is a very thorough and well-researched account of these disappearances. In this book you’ll find as much information about these unfortunate girls as you’re ever going to find, and other cases are mentioned as well.

Trail of Blood: a Father, a Son and a Tell-tale Crime Scene Investigation
by Wanda Webb Evans, in corroboration with James Dunn

Although Roger “Scott” Dunn is the missing (presumed murdered) person in Trail of Blood, the book is about his father, Jim Dunn, as much as it is about Scott. Jim Dunn corroborated on this book, which chronicles Scott’s case from the day his disappearance was made known to the trial, conviction and sentencing of two individuals for his murder. Without Jim’s dedication, without him constantly pestering the police and anyone else whom he thought could help, Scott’s murder would probably have never been solved. A good word should also be said for the investigating officers, who were very diligent in working the case and never “wrote it off,” even when it seemed hopeless.

Although the writing is somewhat dry at times, this book presents a good portrait of the principal characters and also shows the difficulty of solving a murder where there is no weapon, no witnesses, no confessions, and worst of all, no body. The time frame covers over six years between Scott’s disappearance and the convictions of his killers, but the suspense remains throughout. I’m sure I’m not the only one who was outraged when I discovered at the end that one of the murder defendants was sentenced to probation, and the other is already being considered for parole. Trail of Blood is a good read, particularly those who are interested in forensics, since it goes into so much detail about the physical evidence.

Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America by Paula S. Fass

An academic history of child abduction in the United States, beginning in the late 1800s. The book contains the story of Charley Ross, whom this website was named for, as well as Etan Patz, Polly Klaas and other cases. This is not a true-crime book, but a social history written for a scholar’s eyes. It addresses the social impact of child abductions, methods police and parents have used to get their children back, and the problem of family abduction.

The Shallow Grave in Trinity County by Harry Farrell

Although this page is supposed to be for books about people who are still missing, I couldn’t resist including Shallow Grave. It’s an incredibly detailed, day-by-day history of the disappearance of fourteen-year-old Stephanie Bryan in 1955, and the subsequent search for her and the trial and execution of her presumed murderer, a young accounting student named Burton Abbott. Methods to find missing children were very primitive back then compared to now; if Stephanie had been kidnapped today, an Amber Alert would probably have been issued and while it might not have saved her, it certainly would have lead police to her killer sooner. It is chilling to think that Burton, a skinny, sickly and deceptively bland man, would certainly have gotten away with his crime and very possibly kept on killing had he not been stupid enough (or arrogant enough) to hide Stephanie’s belongings in his own basement. If his wife had not found them there, Stephanie might be profiled on this website.

The issue of Abbott’s guilt or innocence is controversial even to this day, and though Farrell never outright states his opinion, it’s pretty obvious from the writing what he believes. And that’s fine. This is a compulsively readable story; I’ve re-read my copy so often that some of the pages have fallen out.

Among the Missing: An Anecdotal History of Missing Persons from 1800 to the Present by Jay Robert Nash

This is a very absorbing read and I only wish it could be updated to include more recent cases. Nash’s writing style is engaging as he covers hundreds of disappearances of all types, including several featured on this website. Photographs and sketches occasionally illustrate the stories. Nash organizes cases by cause of disappearance: chapters are given titles such as “Escape to Love,” “Murder Unseen,” and, most intriguingly, “No Reason at All.” It should be noted that many of the cases he writes about have been solved; the missing person was located months, years and sometimes decades after vanishing. This, it seems, would lend hope to the families of people who have been gone for extensive time periods.

The Missing by Andrew O’Hagan

Part memoir, part social commentary, this book is about missing people in Great Britain. It’s a bit dated because it was written before the internet came into widespread use, but much of what it says still applies. The book is not about specific cases so much as the phenomenon in general. O’Hagan, a journalist, interviewed runaways and homeless people in addition to law enforcement officials as part of his research. Much of what he says, especially about the people who die and are left undiscovered in their apartments for months, makes for very depressing reading. This book is well worth the time to look at and fostered greater awareness in myself, although I knew a great deal about missing people already.

Stalemate: A Shocking True Story of Child Abduction and Murder by John Philpin

Despite the sensational title and cover, this book, written by an FBI profiler, is actually fairly subdued in tone. It covers the famous, unresolved rash of abductions in the San Francisco bay area in the 1980s and 1990s and the prime suspect, a sewage worker named Timothy Bindner. Bindner has never been charged with anything relating to the missing girls, but he has never been ruled out a suspect either. Tantalizing circumstances link him to the girls, and he is definitely a pedophile in the very least, but there is not a single shred of hard evidence implicating him in any kidnappings.

Philpin interviewed Bindner extensively and presents a good portrait of the man’s pathology. I don’t know if he’s actually mentally ill, but he’s certainly a very strange individual. I admired the author’s objectivity; Philpin never said whether he believed Bindner to be complicit or not, but simply put the facts down and let the reader decide. Stalemate kind of peters out at the end, but mostly this is not the fault of the author and is simply the result of having no real-life conclusion to make: none of the girls have been found and no arrests have been made.

Clay by Colby Rodowsky

Snatched from their custodial father four years ago by their flaky, unstable mother, Linda Clay McGee and her brother Timmy lead a stifled, isolated life. They are forced to use alias names (Linda is Elsie and Timmy is Tommy) and are not allowed to attend school or make friends with anyone in the neighborhood. The family moves frequently so the mother can feel “safe,” and the children are left alone for long periods while their mother is at work. In addition, Timmy is autistic and not getting help for his condition, and when he comes down with a serious infection midway through the book, his mother refuses to take him to a doctor or even to admit that anything is wrong with him. Finally, Linda Clay, the protagonist, takes the initiative and convinces a neighbor to call the authorities, but even after the children are returned to their searching father it is clear that things will never be the same again: everyone involved was profoundly changed by the experience.

Although it is a novel, and one designed for children at that, I think anyone interested in missing children, especially family abductions, should read Clay. There are very few novels on parental abduction, and this is the only one I know of that actually depicts it realistically. It’s a wonderful answer to “The kid is with a parent, how bad can it be?”

Vanishing Point: the Disappearance of Judge Crater and the New York He Left Behind by Richard J. Tofel

Vanishing Point is one of only two full-length books about the infamous 1930 disappearance of Joseph Force Crater, the other book being Crater’s wife’s memoir which is reviewed above. Studying both books as a unit will reveal much about Crater’s disappearance; Stella’s is more personal, but Tofel’s has an objectivity the memoir necessarily lacks. One gets the impression that Tofel really wanted to write about Tammany Hall politics and was just using the Crater mystery as an excuse to do so, as much of his book concerns the life and crimes of various other New York politicians who were only tangentially connected to Crater. But you can easily skip over those parts if they don’t interest you.

Tofel’s conclusion is that Crater died of natural causes while patronizing a well-known house of prostitution, and his body was disposed of to prevent the scandal that would have resulted. I suppose there is much evidence supporting this theory as there is for any of the many others—that is, none. But no matter what supposition you subscribe to, Crater’s disappearance remains an engaging mystery.

Little Charley Ross: America’s First Kidnapping for Ransom by Norman J. Zierold

I ran into this book entirely by chance in the musty stacks of used bookstore and naturally became very excited. As far as I know it’s the only full and detailed account of Charley’s abduction. While the historian in me would have liked Zierold to footnote his sources, Little Charley Ross seems to be an accurate and unbiased book, with many details I had not previously known and a centerfold of pictures. My only wish is that Zierold could have, like the above-mentioned Mr. Aunapu, included his own theory as to Charley’s fate in the afterword. However, this is a minor quibble and the book is well worth reading without it.

Source: http://www.charleyproject.org/