Published by the American Herald on 12-1-2020

BE IT DECLARED any attack against any office of General Post Master within the Government of The United States of America, American National Union of The United States of America or sub Union office holder without a proper claim with evidence being brought forth in accordance with due process of law within the Human Rights Tribunal International or the General Post Master Council will result in immediate removal from the American National Union of The United States of America in accordance with Article II Section B of the American National Union of The United States of America Constitution, By Laws, and Standing Rules of Order for the General Assembly and the Great Council.

BE IT FURTHER DECLARED that any office holder within the American National Union of The United States of America or any sub Union thereof that creates a liability through drug use for the aforesaid office will be removed from office in accordance with Article II Section B for subversive activity. 

Published by the committee for the American National Union of The United States of America

Published by the American Herald on 11-18-2020 

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE

AFFIDAVIT

Comes now, William Emory Reffett, Trustee, (hereinafter “Affiant”) being competent to testify and being over the age of twenty-one years, after first being duly sworn according to the law to tell the truth to the facts related herein states that affiant has first- hand knowledge and belief that these facts are true to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief, and;

Respondent parties-Deeshona Gaines, (hereinafter ” Respondent(A)”), employed at Alexandria Police Department, hereinafter “APD”,at 1000 Bolton Ave, Alexandria, LA 71301, -“Corporal” Winn,(hereinafter “Respondent(B)”), employed with Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Office, (hereinafter: “RPSO”),- “Deputy” Salaard, (hereinafter: “Respondent(C)”), employed with RPSO, both Respondent(A) and Respondent(B) employed under the supervision of one, Matt Dauzat, Warden for RPSO Detention Center 1, at 701 Murray St. # 302, Alexandria, LA 71301, and

1. On the 219th day in the year of YHWH, 6022 , translated- October 23rd, 2020, at approximately09:30 UTC -06:00, translated- 3:30 pm central time, Affiant left a property located near Peach St and traveled along Maryland Ave. on Affiants bicycle, and

2. Affiant viewed two APD cruisers parked side by side on the avenue, leaving the outside APD cruiser parked in the middle of the avenue. Observing no sign of caution, flashing lights, oncoming traffic, or other, Affiant proceeded around the APD cruisers. As Affiant returned to the right side of the road, passing by a third APD cruiser, Affiant was called back to speak to Respondent(A), along with two unnamed city employees, all of which were armed with side arms.

3. While the two unnamed city employees took Affiants bicycle and backpack, Respondent(A)called Affiant back to ask a few questions and Affiant asked if Respondent(A) would be conducting an investigation. Respondent (A) answered “yes” and asked for Affiants name, address and the last 4 digits of a Social Security number. Affiant answered with Affiants all capital letter business entity name, Affiants address of NAC: 78T8T N6J3R, and notified Respondent(A) that Affiant has no Social Security number. Respondent(A) and an unnamed city employee both demanded a Social Security number, and

4. After several attempts for a Social Security number Respondent bound Affiant’s hands with metal cuffs, and led him to the driver side rear door of the APD cruiser parked next to the avenue curb. Affiant was “arrested” for not providing a Social Security number and violating bike laws, and Affiants bicycle was left, propped against the stop sign, on the corner of Maryland Ave and Laurel St., and

5. Respondent (A) transported Affiant, first to APD, where Respondent (A) exited the vehicle and briefly spoke to an unidentified person, leaving Affiant restrained in the back seat, then returned to the vehicle and transported Affiant to RPSO Detention Center 1, where Affiant was then handed over to parish employees who checked Affiants temperature and forced a face covering over Affiants mouth, and

6. Once inside, Affiant was led to a small room by Respondent (B) and Respondent (C), both demanding Affiant to take off Affiants clothes, and Affiant did not consent. While Affiants face was against the wall, Respondent (B) and Respondent (C) grabbed Affiant, slammed Affiant on a table, punched Affiant twice, twisted Affiants fingers, then began taking Affiants clothes off, until Affiants shorts were partially off. Under duress, Affiant stripped the remaining clothes, shoes, shorts and underwear that were partially off, and an urn necklace Affiant always wore containing Affiants mothers ashes, squatted and coughed then put on an orange jumpsuit. Affiant was then led to an area where Affiant grabbed a mat and toiletries, then led to a dorm style room with bars, #509, where Affiant claimed a bunk inside a two man cell, and

7. At approximately 02:00 UTC- 06:00, translated- 8 pm central time, Affiant was called by unnamed parish employees to bring all possessions and was returned to a small room to redress in Affiants personal clothes, led to a room to be “processed” ( fingerprinted ),which Affiant did not consent to, then led to the front of the detention center to sign papers. Again, under duress, Affiant signed a paper to appear for a meeting with members of the BAR on the 239th day in the year of YHWH,6022, translated- November 12th, 2020, and two computerized signatures, to be released on Affiants own recognizance. Affiant has not received any notice, written, or any other form of, as to the reason for computerized signatures, and

8. Affiant was then instructed to exit by way of a remote control locked door and wait outside the suite for Affiants property. After several minutes Affiants backpack and the contents inside were returned to Affiant. Items missing included a baseball cap, a food card in the name of Susan Perry, which was reported stolen after returning to Affiants residence, and most notably the urn necklace containing Affiants mothers ashes, and

 ALLEGATIONS AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTS

 Affiant now alleges that Respondent(A), and all parties associating with Respondent(A), committed and/or are committing, as evidence shall prove, acts of Communism, Trafficking in person(s), Forced Association, Gang Stalking, and Profiling, violating Article(s) 30 and 34 of the Bilateral Social Compact Agreement by and between the people for The United States of America, therefore violating all 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, now classified as Public Law(s) 101 within the States of the Union within The United States of America, as a result of Affiant not identifying to a Social Security number.

The Bilateral Social Compact Agreement states in the following Articles:

•  Article 30.1- Any private membership association or any other association to require or ask for a Social Security number, and 2. To associate a Social Security number to any type of citizen status, and 3. To use a Social Security number in any form of a judicial proceeding or judiciary proceeding, and 4. Used as a point of jurisdiction, and
•  Article 34- The people for The United States of America agree that Communism is hereby outlawed.

Based on Respondent (A)’s own code of conduct, the following is referenced:

• Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 215.1A states- A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions ( neither an identification card nor Social Security number are mentioned ).
• Title 42 of the United States Code section 408a(8) states discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the Social Security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States ” shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both”, and

Affiant further alleges that attempt(s) to modify, circumvent and/or negate the Federal Common Law Lien and Writ of Attachment on Personal Property issued on Affiants person in the amount of Fifty Million Dollars (USD or the equivalent of ), have been committed, prosecutable pursuant to Title 42, U.S. Code, Sections 1983, 1985 and 1986 and punishable under the penalties of the Common Law at Law and applicable sections of Title 18, U.S. Code.

OTHER PARTIES ASSOCIATING WITH RESPONDENT (A)

Based on evidence, the following parties are, or have been in association with Deeshona Gaines, Respondent (A):

• Alexandria Police Department: 1000 Bolton Ave., Alexandria, LA 71301
• City of Alexandria: P.O. Box 71, Alexandria, LA 71309
• Rapides Parish Sheriffs Office: 700 Murray St., Alexandria, LA 71301*Human Rights Tribunal Case #HRTI- 9C69-D37G-HJ86-P3L2- 18E1T500N280E59R
• Matt Dauzat, Warden at Rapides Parish Sheriffs Office Detention Center 1: 701 Murray St., Suite 301, Alexandria, LA 71301
• Alexandria City Court: 515 Washington St., Alexandria, LA 71301
• Richard E. Starling, Jr., judge on Alexandria City Court: 515 Washington St., Alexandria, LA 71301
• Tracy W. Liotta, Clerk of Court on Alexandria City Court: 515 Washington St., Alexandria, LA 71301

GENERAL TESTIMONY

It is very clear that the Respondents are Gang Stalking and Harassing Affiant for political reasons. The State of Louisiana is a Napoleonic Code state wherein is a communist, socialist, Nazi political structure.

The following is required of all Respondents:

4 U.S. Code § 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers

• U.S. Code
• Notes

Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” (July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 643.)

A VIOLATION OF: An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths. Constitution of the U.S. article 6, page 19 IN Sec. 1., Sec. 2., Sec. 3., Sec. 4., Sec. 5. Approved, June 1, 1789

AND

1 Stat 23 (Statues at Large) Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

Stat. 643 § 102. Such oath may be administered by any person who, by the law of the State, is authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person so administering such oath shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made in the same manner, as by the law of the State, he is directed to record or certify the oath of office.

The reaction to the oath requirement will be the same as a sovereign citizen domestic terrorist response that the Respondents are not subject to Federal law and therefore immune as State employees, wherein these types of responses are typical of sovereign citizens. It is common for Sovereign citizens to impersonate Public Officers and claim authority they do not possess. Apparently, the sovereign citizen theology, as dangerous as they are has leaked into the police forces of the State of Louisiana and committing domestic terrorist acts against civilians. LINK

Affiant further sayeth naught,

This 245th day, in the year of YHWH, 6022- translated: 18th of November, 2020.

William Emory Reffett, Trustee

Published by the committee for the American National Union of The United States of America

Published by the American Herald

on 11-15-2020

International and National Public Notice

AFFIDAVIT

November 15, 2020

Comes now, Sean Cooper, Trustee (hereinafter “affiant”) being competent to testify and being over the age of twenty-one years, after first being duly sworn according to the law to tell the truth to the facts related herein states that affiant has first- hand knowledge and belief that these facts are true to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief, and;

On, November 13, 2020 a friend came to visit and asked if affiant wanted to go to Buffalo Wild Wings at the mall of New Hampshire in Manchester State of New Hampshire.  Affiant accepted the invitation and made our way into the restaurant. Upon arriving affiant noticed the front doors of said restaurant had a sign that stated that masks were mandatory. Being a medically exempt veteran affiant figured it was appropriate to explain affiant’s situation. As affiant walked into the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant, affiant was stopped by the host who was working the front. The host informed affiant that affiant was to wear a mask until affiant got to the bar. Affiant responded by informing the host of affiant’s medical exemption. The host then asked the affiant to wait while the host grabbed the manager.

The manager (hereinafter “Ben”), would not tell affiant his last name but did start a conversation within 6 feet. While conversing, affiant explained that affiant is a medically exempt veteran, to which Ben replied that affiant needed to wear a mask until affiant got to the bar and then affiant could remove the mask for the duration of the visit. Affiant states that the restaurant is enforcing the arbitrary guidelines of an unelected organization known as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter “CDC”) to which any orders from the CDC have been outlawed in Article 31 of the social compact agreement by and between the people for The United States of America. LINK

Affiant once again explained to Ben about affiant being medically exempt, and that affiant was willing to cover affiant’s mouth and nose with the sleeve of affiant’s hoody for the 5 second walk to the bar but stated that being forced to arbitrarily wear a mask violates affiant’s intangible property right to determine what is best for affiant’s health and well-being. There was no budge. Before being kicked out, affiant and manager Ben discussed the oppressive actions that Ben had committed. Affiant was being treated unjustly, and affiant further states that Ben’s actions on behalf of Buffalo Wild Wings created much social awkwardness to which embarrassed affiant in front of affiant’s friend.

After the aforementioned discussion regarding Ben’s arbitrary actions, affiant proposed a question to Ben asking if Ben was ok with being an oppressor from affiant’s point of view. Ben made it clear that the restaurant rules from the CDC guidelines superseded affiant’s right to determine what is best for affiant’s own health and well-being. Although affiant tried to meet Ben in the middle by offering to cover affiant’s mouth and nose as mentioned above, Ben continued to treat affiant as less than human and hereby accuses Buffalo Wild Wings with the political crime of communism for enforcing CDC guidelines. Ben then asked affiant to leave and let affiant know that affiant was not welcome in their restaurant.  LINK

Affiant further sayeth naught,

Sean Cooper

Published by the committee for the American National Union of The United States of America