Posts tagged 'War Crimes'
Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud
If you have been reading my articles about the legal system, you should know that this system is a big fat FRAUD and is run by a bunch of TRAITORS to humanity! The content below will show you more evidence of this fraud against humanity. For some reason, I could not find the court case No. 4:14-CV-0027 on txcourts.gov.
As always, use your intuition to help you discern the information and do your own research to verify the information below. Thanks to Steve for sending me the link to this article. ~ PL Chang
Sister Federal tax case: Petitioner demands Court's constitutional authority; plaintiff and Court go silent; Petitioner demands immediate dismissal and costs, restitution, and damages of $1,841,451.45
(SupremeCourtCase.wordpress.com) The case featured in this website appealed to the Supreme Court is Southern District of Texas, Houston Division No. 4:14-CV-0027.
There is another case against Petitioner being handled by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney, the sister case: Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division No. 9:14-CV-138 (the "Lufkin Case").
Petitioner's filings in the Lufkin Case have been fielded by multiple judges and magistrates from three different judicial districts. The government has made no progress in 14 months.
When Petitioner made a motion for the first judge in the Lufkin Case—Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Ron Clark—to recuse (self-disqualify) himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law (and provided evidence proving the same), Judge Clark went silent and remained so. Six weeks later the case was removed to a different judicial district (Tyler Division) under a different judge. The case is now back in the Lufkin Division; Judge Clark is not involved.
For any court to exercise jurisdiction in a particular geographic area, there is a requirement that the Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it; to wit:
"It remains rudimentary law that "[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal [United States Supreme Court], two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . ." [Emphasis in original.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).
That a lawsuit is authorized by the statutes of Congress, however, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest jurisdiction in any Federal court; to wit:
"So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that, although these suits may sometimes so present questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction, yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts." Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513 (1900).
Article III of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to ordain and establish inferior trial courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction—with no authority to exercise general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject matter) anywhere in the Union.
Courtesy of Congress, however (since no later than June 25, 1948), every United States District Court is a court of general jurisdiction and hears and decides both civil and criminal cases, an implied power granted only in the territorial clause of the Constitution, Article 4 § 3(2), and only in Federal territory, such as the District of Columbia and the territories; to wit, in pertinent part:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . ."
All Federal civil and criminal proceedings fall under Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure.
Congress define "judgment" in Title 28 U.S.C., Chapter 176, Section 3002(8) as follows:
"'Judgment' means a judgment, order, or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt."
On September 14, 2015, Petitioner files in the Lufkin Case, "Defendant's Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas" (the "Objection and Demand") (hyperlinked below).
The statutory period for plaintiff United States to respond to the Objection and Demand is 14 days.
On September 29, 2015, 15 days after the filing of the Objection and Demand, the record in the Lufkin Case is devoid of response from either plaintiff or the Court—and Petitioner transmits to the clerk on that date, for filing September 30, 2015, "Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas" (the "Demand for Dismissal") (hyperlinked below).
The reason neither plaintiff nor the Lufkin Court could produce the constitutional authority that allows the Court to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas, is because there is no such constitutional authority.
For the Lufkin Court to reveal that it is using Article 4 § 3(2) of the Constitution to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas, and extend its jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction, would be to confess to usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction and treason to the Constitution.
"How can this be?" or "How can they get away with this?" you may ask.
The answer is simple.
When Congress define a word or expression by legislative act, the ordinary and popular meaning (as found in the dictionary or encyclopedia) is stripped away and the new term means only what Congress define it to mean—and there is no discretion for anyone to take such term in any other way than provided in the statute.
In all civil and criminal proceedings in United States District Courts, "United States" is a term with a special definition and meaning.
In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines "court," "debt," "judgment," and "United States" (Chapter 176 Federal Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), "United States" means a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).
In the United States District Court conducting the Lufkin Case, "United States" means a Federal corporation—and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over all other Federal entities of any kind—is the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[1]
Every appearance of "United States" in anything and everything relating to Federal district courts means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:
"Congress of the United States" means, literally, Congress of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.
"Title 28 United States Code" means, literally, Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Code.
"United States District Court" means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court.
"United States District Judge" means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Judge.
"United States Attorney" means, literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Attorney.
In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there is no discretion for anyone to take "United States" any other way.
Actors in government rely on cognitive dissonance[2] on the part of victims of the Federal word game to perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and subject the American People to District of Columbia municipal law.
The hoax is protected by a culture of silence among all initiates in the Federal judiciary, Department of Justice, and other key positions in government.
And that is how they get away with it.
In summation: United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2) District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended their jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction (District of Columbia and the territories only), into geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).
There is no constitutional authority that gives any contemporary United States District Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county in America—and no one can produce such authority.
Objection and Demand, September 14, 2015
Demand for Dismissal, September 30, 2015
[1] "An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia," ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in "An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia," ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–'74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).
[2] In general, people cannot reconcile the 75 absurd, convoluted definitions of "United States" scattered throughout the United States Code with what they believe is the United States. For those few souls who manage to figure it out and speak up about it, actors in government follow a culture-of-silence policy of "Never respond, confirm, or deny." Examples of this are (1) Chief Judge Ron Clark's six weeks of silence following Petitioner's motion for him to recuse himself for incompetence by reason of ignorance of law, and (2) ZERO government progress in the Lufkin Case in more than 14 months.
If a particular intended victim persists, government actors may mock / ridicule him by implication by quoting him, as if to say, "Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He thinks the United States is a Federal corporation!" (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society as to the truth of the matter.
Petitioner obviates the cognitive-dissonance factor in the Lufkin Case by going straight to the supreme determinant, upon which the Lufkin Court's very existence depends: the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in Tyler County, Texas. There is no such constitutional authority—and the Lufkin Court and every other United States District Court located throughout the Union is a kangaroo court with no lawful authority to do business in any county, borough, or parish in America.
Sister Federal tax case: Judge and DOJ attorneys abandon case midstream, decline to participate any further
On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138, Defendant's Objection to Denial of Due Process of Law and Demand for Disclosure of the Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the "Objection and Demand").
Plaintiff United States had 14 days to respond, but went silent (first and only time of which Petitioner is aware, that the government failed to respond to a challenge of jurisdiction).
As of September 29, 2015, it was incumbent on the Court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (h)(3) or 41(b).
The Court, however, stood mute.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed on September 30, 2015, Petitioner's Demand for Dismissal, with Prejudice, of this Alleged Case for Lack of Constitutional Authority that Gives the Court the Capacity to Take Jurisdiction and Enter Judgments, Orders, and Decrees in Favor of the United States Arising from a Civil or Criminal Proceeding Regarding a Debt, in Tyler County, Texas (the "Demand for Dismissal").
Plaintiff had until October 14, 2015, to produce the constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.
As of this post (October 28, 2015), 44 days have passed since the filing of the Objection and Demand and 28 since the Demand for Dismissal and neither the judge nor either of the Department of Justice attorneys has responded in any way following Petitioner's demands.
The reason neither the judge nor DOJ attorneys will respond or confirm or deny Petitioner's filings, is that anything that any of them may say in writing—whether for or against Petitioner—will evince treason to the Constitution, not only on their part, but on the part of every other Federal judge and DOJ attorney doing business anywhere in the Union.
Notwithstanding that the penalty for treason to the Constitution is death, the Federal judge and DOJ attorneys in this case have a more pressing situation on their hands:
The entire fraudulent Federal judicial apparatus is at stake because no contemporary Federal court has the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt, in any county, parish, or borough in America—and there is no reason why the above filings from this case will not produce the same results in any other Federal case, civil or criminal, anywhere in the Union.
If the Department of Justice cannot win a case anywhere in America, the days of the hoax of Federal jurisdiction over the American People are numbered.
The sister Federal tax case in the Lufkin Division was an attempt to foreclose on Federal tax liens filed against Petitioner's ranch. Judge and plaintiff having departed the field of battle, said case is over in substance—Petitioner prevailing.
Regarding the original Federal tax case, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil No. 4:14-cv-0027 (which the Supreme Court declined to review): There are other remedies available to Petitioner and Petitioner is pursuing them. Developments will be posted on this website as they occur.
https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/11/federal-tax-case-shows-evidence-the-u-s-legal-system-is-a-fraud-3239828.html
Links to 9 pages That Prove, That You Are Living A Lie!
"OF THE Matrix"
White House releases text of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal
The much-anticipated release of the final text of a sweeping Asia-Pacific trade agreement became a reality on Thursday morning, kicking off what is expected to amount to months of intensive debate on Capitol Hill.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office dropped the details of the massive 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal — 30 chapters and more than 2,000 pages — exactly one month after the agreement was completed on Oct. 5 in Atlanta.
The text of the TPP deal will be under the microscope of Congress and the broader public for at least 90 days before President Obama can sign the agreement, between the United States and 11 other nations: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.
The text, which has been going through a legal scrub since the deal was completed,
During years of talks, the Obama administration has been roundly criticized by anti-trade groups and labor unions for what they deemed an overarching policy of secrecy while the negotiators finely tuned the agreement's details, which will guide trade among nations encompassing 40 percent of the global economy.
The release of the text will probably be followed by an "intent to sign" message to Congress from President Obama, meaning there will be 90 days before he can sign the deal, a rule that is part of the trade promotion authority (TPA), or "fast-track," legislation signed into law this summer.
After that, the White House will send implementing language to Capitol Hill, starting the clock for the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees to begin their process of moving the TPP through their panels and to their respective floors for a final up-and-down vote.
Under fast-track rules, Congress is prohibited from amending the TPP deal.
Also expected along the way are government reports that will evaluate the economic benefits of the agreement.
On Wednesday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in an op-ed in The Hill that the TPA law "does not guarantee approval for the TPP or any trade agreement."
"In fact, quickly following the announcement that TPP negotiators had reached a deal, a number of initial reports signaled potential trouble for congressional approval," Hatch wrote.
Hatch said he wants to ensure that the TPP meets fast-track objectives, that the trading partners can fulfill the deal's high standards and that White House will work closely with Congress on the review process before signing off on the deal.
The Obama administration is expected to intensify its engagement with Congress following the release of the text.
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, his trade team and the president and his Cabinet are already pitching the deal to lawmakers, stakeholders and the public.
The White House will try to assure Democrats that the labor and environment chapters are the strongest ever negotiated in a trade agreement, that they are fully enforceable and won't cause the job losses that occurred under past agreements.
There also will be a focus on the elimination of 18,000 tariffs and the benefits for U.S. agriculture.
Some lawmakers, including Hatch, have expressed concerns about eight years of data exclusivity on high-tech biologic drugs instead of 12 years that is the U.S. standard.
Some lawmakers have said they would actively oppose the deal because tobacco products are exempt from some trade protections in certain public health situations.
"Like many, I am immensely concerned that the administration may have missed a pivotal opportunity with the TPP to get the best deal possible for the American people," Hatch said.
"I hope that I am wrong."
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who has been supportive of White House trade efforts, said Wednesday that he plans to ensure that the Republican Conference knows and understands every word in the TPP.
"If we decide this is good for America, then we're going to be the leaders," Brady said.
Trade is expected to rise to the top of the committee's agenda as members pore over the massive agreement in the next several months.
Watch this video in the link below:
http://media.thehill.com/services/player/bcpid407451912001?bctid=4598188989001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEA-5AE~,7pYsU79IKz1jyZLSY9Sb290m5ARebDo_
Brady has said that if there is support for the TPP, he would like to get it done early next year rather than wait until a lame-duck session.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), one of 28 Democrats who supported fast-track authority, said Wednesday that timing on a TPP in the House must be "exquisitely managed."
If it can't get done before April, the measure would have to be pushed to the lame-duck session or "you're in our primary season and that's a problem," he said.
Also on Wednesday, Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said the panel's Democratic members will hold a series of in-depth hearings starting the week of Nov. 16 "zeroing in on those issues that are of particular importance or concern to us and our fellow Democratic colleagues."
Those issues include the environment, workers rights, investment (including tobacco), automotive and agricultural market access, rules of origin, currency manipulation and the potential effect on U.S. jobs and the economy.
"The upcoming 90-day period was established to facilitate an intensive and informed debate over the merits of TPP as negotiated, as well as the necessity for any modifications to the agreement, before the agreement is signed," Levin said.
"Ways and Means Democrats look forward to engaging fully and meaningfully with stakeholders, the public, our colleagues and the administration during this period."
Chapters TPP Full Text
1. Initial Provisions and General definitions (Chapter Summary)
2. National Treatment and Market Access (Chapter Summary)
Annex 2-D: Tariff Commitments
Australia General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Australia Tariff Elimination Schedule
Brunei General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Brunei Tariff Elimination Schedule
Canada General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Canada Tariff Elimination Schedule
Canada Appendix A Tariff Rate Quotas
Canada Appendix B Japan Canada Motor Vehicle NTM
Chile General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Chile Tariff Elimination Schedule
Japan General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Japan Tariff Elimination Schedule
Japan Appendix A Tariff Rate Quotas
Japan Appendix B 1 Agricultural Safeguard Measures
Japan Appendix B 2 Forest Good Safeguard Measure
Japan Appendix C Tariff-Differentials
Japan Appendix D Appendix between Japan and the United States on Motor Vehicle Trade
Japan Appendix E Appendix between Japan and Canada on Motor Vehicle Trade
Malaysia General Notes to Tariff-Schedule
Malaysia Tariff Elimination-Schedule
Malaysia Appendix A Tariff Rate Quotas
Mexico General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Mexico Appendix A, B and C Tariff Rate Quotas and Tariff Differentials
Mexico Tariff Elimination Schedule
New Zealand General Notes to Tariff Schedule
New Zealand Tariff Elimination Schedule
Peru General Notes to Tariff-Schedule
Peru Tariff Elimination Schedule
Singapore General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Singapore Tariff Elimination Schedule
US General Notes to Tariff Schedule
US Tariff Elimination-Schedule
US Appendix A Tariff Rate Quotas
US Appendix B Agricultural Safeguard Measures
US Appendix C Tariff Differentials
US Appendix D Motor Vehicle Trade
US Appendix E Earned Import Allowance Program
Viet-Nam General Notes to Tariff Schedule
Viet-Nam Tariff Elimination Schedule
Viet-Nam Appendix A Tariff Rate Quotas
3. Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures (Chapter Summary)
Annex 3-D: Product Specific Rules
Annex 3-D: Appendix 1—Automotive
4. Textiles and Apparel (Chapter Summary)
Annex 4-A: Textiles Product Specific Rule
Annex 4-A Appendix: Short Supply List
5. Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation (Chapter Summary)
6. Trade Remedies (Chapter Summary)
7. Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (Chapter Summary)
8. Technical Barriers to Trade (Chapter Summary)
9. Investment (Chapter Summary)
10. Cross Border Trade in Services (Chapter Summary)
11. Financial Services (Chapter Summary)
12. Temporary Entry for Business Persons (Chapter Summary)
Annex 12-A: Temporary Entry for Business Persons
13. Telecommunications (Chapter Summary)
14. Electronic Commerce (Chapter Summary)
15. Government Procurement (Chapter Summary)
​​Annex 15-A: Government Procurement
16. Competition (Chapter Summary)
17. State-Owned Enterprises (Chapter Summary)
18. Intellectual Property (Chapter Summary)
19. Labour (Chapter Summary)
US-BN Labor Consistency Plan
US- MY Labor Consistency Plan
US-VN Plan for Enhancement of Trade and Labor Relations
20. Environment (Chapter Summary)
21. Cooperation and Capacity Building (Chapter Summary)
22. Competitiveness and Business Facilitation (Chapter Summary)
23. Development (Chapter Summary)
24. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (Chapter Summary)
25. Regulatory Coherence (Chapter Summary)
26. Transparency and Anti-corruption (Chapter Summary)
27. Administration and Institutional Provisions (Chapter Summary)
28. Dispute Settlement (Chapter Summary)
29. Exceptions (Chapter Summary)
30. Final Provisions (Chapter Summary)
Annex I: Non-Conforming Measures
Consolidated Formatting Note
Annex II: Non-Conforming Measures
Annex III: Financial Services
Annex IV: State-Owned Enterprise
Related Instruments
Market Access Related
US- AU Letter Exchange re Recognition of FTA TRQs in TPP
US-AU Letter Exchange on Sugar Review
US-CA Letter Exchange on Milk Equivalence
US-CA Letter Exchange on Agricultural Transparency
US-CL Letter Exchange on Distinctive Products
US-CL Letter Exchange regarding Recognition of FTA TRQs in TPP
JP Exchange of Letters on Distinctive Products
JP to US Letter on Safety Regulations for Motor Vehicles
US-JP Letter Exchange on Operation of SBS Mechanism
US-JP Letter Exchange on Operation of Whey Protein Concentrate Safeguard
US-JP Letter Exchange regarding Standards of Fill
US-JP Letters related to the PHP
US-MY Letter Exchange on Auto Imports
US-MY Letter Exchange on Distinctive Products
US-NZ Letter Exchange on Distinctive Products
US-PE Letter Exchange on Distinctive Products
US-PE Letter Exchange on TRQs and Safeguards
US-VN Letter Exchange on Catfish
US-VN Letter Exchange on Distinctive Products of US
US-VN Letter Exchange on Distinctive Products of VN
US-VN Letter Exchange on Offals
Textiles and Apparel Related
US-BN Letter Exchange on Textiles and Apparel
US-MY Letter Exchange on Registered Textile and Apparel Enterprises
US-SG Exchange on Letters on Textiles and US-SG FTA
US-VN Letter Exchange on Registered Textile and Apparel Enterprises
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Related
US-CL SPS Letter Exchange regarding Salmonid Eggs
Intellectual Property Related
US-AU Letter Exchange on Selected IP Provisions
US-AU Letter Exchange on Article 17.9.7(b) of AUSFTA
US-CA Letter Exchange on IP Border Enforcement
US-CL Letter Exchange re Geographical Indications
US-CL Letter Exchange re Article 17.10.2 of US Chile FTA
US-JP Letter Exchange re Copyright Term
US-MY Letter Exchange re Articles 18.41 .50 and .52
US-MY Letter Exchange re Geographical Indications
US-MX Letter Exchange re Geographical Indications
US-MX Letter Exchange re Tequila and Mezcal
US-PE Letter Exchange re Article 16.14.3 of US-Peru TPA
US-VN Letter Exchange on Biologics
US-VN Letter Exchange re Geographical Indications
Services/Financial Services/E-Commerce
US-CL Letter Exchange regarding Express Delivery Services
US-VN Letter Exchange on Pharmaceutical Distribution
US-VN Letter Exchange regarding Electronic Payment Services
US-AU Letter Exchange on Privacy
Temporary Entry
US-JP Letter Exchange re Temporary Entry
Government Procurement
US-AU Letter Exchange on AUSFTA GP Thresholds
US-CA Letter Exchange re GP Thresholds
Letter Exchange US-CA-MX re GP Procedures
SOEs
US-SG Letter Exchange on SOE Transparency
US-CL Understanding regarding Fisheries Subsidies and Natural Disasters
US-MY Exchange of Letters on Committee to Coordinate Implementation of Environment Chapters
US-PE Understanding regarding Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge
US-PE Understanding regarding Conservation and Trade
Annex on Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices
US-AU Letter Exchange on Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
US-JP Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
US-PE Understanding re Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
US-Japan Bilateral Outcomes
US-Japan Motor Vehicle Trade Non-Tariff Measures
US-JP Letter Exchange on Certain Auto NTMs
JP to US Letter on Motor Vehicle Distribution Survey
Japan Parallel Negotiations on Non-Tariff Measures
US-JP Letter Exchange on Non-Tariff Measures
Guns In Chicago – Leland
Leland provides an inside look at the propaganda on Gun Control as a lie. He gives insight into the situation in Chicago and how criminals are getting their hands on guns. Make a note: Regardless of if you believe his story or not. Criminals are getting their hands on guns that are not common to the general public. Guns could be purchased outside the state and brought in, however how is this possible with exotic weapons? His report makes a lot of sense. So listen to his words and realize there is money in Policing, Prisons, Bureaucracy… Its all about the money, lies and control folks.
The truth about Chicago watch and share. .this what they don't want our youth to know.
Here is Leland's original post: https://www.facebook.com/lelandw3/videos/10208045102035208/
Visit their web page at: http://www.maxresistance.com/
Original post by: Maximum "New World Order" Resistance
Thank You for watching and reading. "LET FREEDOM RING"