The Occult Matrix
Recently Updated as of 2017 - This Website is Completely AD FREE - Please Support Me Via Paypal, Promoted Products and Bitcoin, Etherium Or Ripple

Welcome Page About Me Announcements Personal Writings Knowledge Base News Articles
Video Links Digital Downloads Shop Store Suggested Reading Links Page Contact Me

Credo Mutwa Reptilians


Understanding the term "Resident" and other needful Info." 

By the Informer
    "James brought up the term residence and my research has brought forth the following which is
why the government wants you to declare yourself a resident. Resident has one purpose in tax law
and commercial law. "Resident" is the opposite of "non-resident". "Resident" is legally defined in
United States v. Penelope, 27 Fed. Case No. 16024, which states: "But admitting that the common
acceptance of the word and it's legal technical meaning are different, we must presume that 
Congress meant to adopt the latter." Page 487
    "But this is a highly penal act and must have strict construction. ***  The question seems to be 
whether they inserted 'Resident' without the legal meaning generally affixed to it. If they have ommitted to express their meaning we cannot supply it.", Page 489
    Ask yourself this question, has the state or United States in their tax statutes, defined the word 
"resident" in it's legal; technical meaning? The Penelope Court stated the legal meaning of the term
"resident" at page 489: 
    "In the case of Hylton v. Brown (case # 6981) in the Circuit Court, and cases in this court, the
following has always been my definition of the words 'resident' or 'inhabitant', which in my view 
mean the same thing. An inhabitant, or resident is a person coming into a place with an intention
to establish his domicile, or permanent residence; and in consequence. actually resides: under this 
intention he takes a house, or lodgings, as one fixed and stationary, and opens a store or takes any
steps preparatory to do business or in execution of this settled intention."
(Emphasis added)
    The other legal definition for "resident" can be found in Jowitt's English Law Dictionary, 1977 
edition which states; 
    RESIDENT, An agent, minister, or officer residing in any distant place with the dignity of an
ambassador, the chief representative of government at certain princely states; Residents are a class 
of public ministers to ambassadors and envoys, but, like them, they are protected under the law of
    This bears out James' work that the resident, who is a government agent, official, etc., is doing 
business for the British Crown to collect the debt of those residents who are claiming citizenship of
the states or United States because that would make them subjects liable to pay the pecuniary 
contribution, disguised as a "Gross Income Tax", to the Crown. If we are citizens of the lord, Eph.
2:19, are we not within, "the two classes of cases, children born of ALIEN ENEMIES (Emphasis 
mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of 
which by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English 
colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth
within the country.", quoted above by James? Then we are foreign estates to the states and United 
States and not subject to their laws, with the exception being those mala in-se crimes designed by
the LORD. 
Dear Jeff,
    In answer to your question to the editor of the American's Bulletin that the following Public Law
does not say anything about the illegality ofpromoting one-world government, lets start with the 
     Public Law 471 Chapter 456, 88 Stat. 418, Title I, section 109, states, "None of the funds 
appropriated in this title shall be used (1) to pay the United States contributions to any international
organization (the IMF and World Bank) which engages in the direct or indirect promotion or the
principle and doctrine of the one-world government or one-world citizenship; (2) for the 
promotion, direct, or indirect, of the principle or doctrine of one-world government or one world
    The U.S. is a member of the U.N. and the U.N. promotes one world government. The U.N. 
controls "the Bank" and "the Fund". The Governor of the Bank is Robert Rubin doing business as
the secretary of the treasury, which is NOT the United States Treasury. Since the federal reserve 
is private and the IRS is the collection agency for the federal reserve under the direction and 
control of the Governor of the Bank and the Fund (IMF), then any funds collected (pecuniary 
taxation) goes to the U.N.  Therefore when Congress writes a tax bill to collect more taxes, it all 
goes to pay the debt of the United States. This debt is to the King of England. See the Sept. Issue
of the American's Bulletin for James Montgomery's research that we are still a British Colony. 
    Bush and others have promoted the one world government and it has been documented time
and time again. Look at what Clinton is doing in Iraq, again under the guise that he promised the 
Kurds protection. It has nothing to do with the United States security, but it has to do with 
commercial interests within the one world government. 
    So it is very evident the real character of the parties is foreign. Reno, Rubin, Kissenger, Baker, 
Greenspan and others are under the direction and control of foreign interests. They owe allegience 
to the foreign interests and not to this nation. That is why you will not find a subscribed oath of 
office of many government officials under 5 USC 3331. 
    So one simply has to answer these questions to determine if they fit the above public law; 
(1) Have they subscribed their oath under 5 USC 3331?
(2) Do they apply Income Taxes to the general populace? 
(3) Are these taxes used to pay their debt?
(4) Are your tax checks stamped on the back "pay to the federal reserve bank to the credit of the
United States? So they are never "paid", are they? 
(5) Are these funds then transferred to the IMF?
(6) Isn't the IMF "the child of the United Nations"? 
(7) Does the United States officially contribute to the United Nations for their membership?
(8) How many times have the presidents of this country expressed their views that the one world
government is what we need?
(9) Has Congress ever denied the contributions to the U.N.?
(10) Does Congress still run up the debt with the IMF and allow the foreign private federal reserve
to dictate monetary policy and set the rates of interest to control the script it circulates? 
(11) Is the U.S. in a direct promotion of one world peace under the U.N. control when being 
involved in Bosnia, Iraq and other countries? 
(12) Does the U.N. promote one world government? 
    I hope this clarifies the statute. Once you know the real character of the parties it is a simple 
matter. The answers to the above questions prove that it is a crime to provide funds to promote
the one world government, BUT try to enforce it against those in office. Have you ever heard of 
the attorney general Reno implementing 18 USC 219 or 951? (These criminals must have a foreign 
agents registration certificate to operate in this country when representing any foreign power.) Why 
would she, when she herself is part of the one world government? No, the statutes were written to 
control the masses of asses, social slaves, calling themselves United States citizens seeking protection under a Constitution of no authority, but yet loving the United Nations so much they 
allow it to headquarter itself in this country. Now you must read Lysander Spooner's "The 
Constitution of no authority" and you will immediately see why the government officials cannot 
bring about their own demise and will not. The U.N. has to be headquartered in the country that 
has the most gold reserved in it's controlling stock. The proof is in 60 Statutes at Large 1401 et
seq., which lista all the countries and their position as to amounts of money contributed to the 
U.N. The only way to get the U.N. out of this country is to remove the U.S. from membership.
Do you think the U.S. is going to give up the controlling stock because it has 20% of the voting 
stock and has Special Drawing Rights on the coffers of the U.N's "child", the IMF? All the other
countries combined have only 80%. So who owns and has the most control? It expains why the
U.S. seems to be in control and do whatever they damn well please when it comes to war 
flare-ups in the world. The U.S. de facto officers must promote the one world order in order to 
survive so as to pay the debt to the British Crown by Treaty of 1783 and 1793. We are all social
slaves and nobody can hold allodial title when the King of England holds all mineral rights to the
gols, silver, and copper in this country under international law by treaty signed by the "Founding
Fathers", who sold the people back into servitude in 1783. (Note: Many blacks were free to vote
in seven states before the Constitution was created but when ratified they became property and all
were then slaves.)
    Now you may be better attuned as to why Admiralty procedures rule this country's courts. The
law be damned, procedure is what the courts go by. Bring in the law and you will lose. Admiralty
is maritime principles. Maritime is contract. Maritime is ruled by the law of presumption. Are you
not presumed to be guilty and you must PROVE your innocence in tax law? That's presumption
of your guilt, remember CONTRACT initiates all maritime principles and the case of the 
U.S. v 3976 dollars and one 1960 Ford Sta.Wag. 37 F.R.D. 564, proves it when the court stated,
"Although, presumedly for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal 
Revenue laws is commenced as proceeding in Admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding 
takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings Rules of Civil 
Procedure control. 26 U.S.C.A.  (I.R.C. 1954) sec. 7323(a); 40 U.S.C.A. sec. 304(i); Fed. 
Rules of Civ. Proc.rules 55 and(c), 60 and(b), 81(a) (2), 28 U.S.C.A." Federal Civil Procedure
Key 31.
    You must now pull 56 F.R.D. 459 (1972) and read the top of page 461. After reading this and the fact that we are still a British Colony, you can see why the de facto officers of this country are 
NOT in viloation of Public Law 471 Chapter 456, 88 Stat. 418, Title I, sec. 109, because they 
have no subscribed oath of office pursuant to 5 USC 3331. They are not bound by "the 
Constitution of no authority" and it explains why the courts are not bound by it either when flying 
the gold fringed executive/military falg under the admiralty principles. I am supplying you with the 
first page of Admiralty Law Materials from Cornell Law School's legal information institute with 
portions underlined. I'm sure you have heard the phrase "the Constitution will not be brought up in 
this court as it has no bearing on your case? The Constitution does not deal with private 
international contract under maritime principles of commerce. That is why you can't bring up a Constitutional arguement between you and the man or woman you work for. It just doesn't apply.
I know this is more than you expected, but then again the nature of the beast is so convoluted you
can't expect to see everything spelled out in black and white and described to a "T". God forbid to 
do so would destroy the criminals (lawyers) who write the laws. If you don't have the basic 
foundation to work with you will never begin to understand. 
The Informer