MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - CONTINUUM

RECAP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED IN PRECEEDING DOCUMENTS: 1. All Governments are corporations; 2. STATE governments are sub-corporations of FEDERAL UNITED STATES governments; 3. COUNTY governments are sub-corporations of STATE governments; 4. CITY GOVERNMENTS don't have a right to exist as a Sovereign Power; [I reiterate, all governments are corporations] 5. All "Court Houses" are "Dry Docks" within the Admiralty Jurisdiction operating as "For Profit" [“Also Trades As”] in their several and joint enterprises within the Private Placement Platforms of Commercial Trade through the BIC (Borrower In Custody) venue of Chicago Trade Board on a nightly/hourly basis; 6. All Police Enforcement Personnel, when acting outside any "occurrence of an Injury to any Actual/Real Man/Woman, are acting in the Nature of, with mens rea, an INLAND PIRATE. 7. When any Police Enforcement Officer, or supporting personnel of every category through interlocking directorates, captures ANY Living Man/Woman, under vi et armis, their private property or their time with their productive potential being disrupted, that Officer and all supporting personnel do so at their own peril. 8. Claimant IS a "State" Citizen and a Citizen of The United States of America, but Claimant is NOT a U.S. citizen of the United States as found at U.C.C. 9-307(h) "The United States is located in the District of Columbia." The "Federal Question" Diversity of Citizenship was invoked ab initio. 9. The Federal Government is "Foreign" to State or Tribal Government: a well established fact. Private is "Foreign" to Public. Comment: When any Sworn Officer of the "Public" steps beyond their obligated boundary of to "defend, protect, and to serve" the Constitutional Application [which they so properly are sworn to] of Private [not corporate] People [not "persons"] (only Real People have Rights) and their (the People's) Property (notice, I did NOT say corporate property), then they become a Private, Corporate "Rent-A-Cop", a "hired gun", a "hit-man" and an overgrown third grade bully that "knows for a fact" that only the meanest or the "Upper Class" [and, their "kiss-ass" minions] have a "right" to exist in "their" corner of the world. Their acts/actions are those of Pirateers; they become Pirates.

INLAND PIRACY DEFINED: Claims Made: The piracy laws are 1650-1660, 1652 is
piracy by citizens, as well as treason. This is enacted law, not color of law as Title 42 USC.

18 USC
Sec. 1652. Citizens as pirates Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.

Sec. 1658. Plunder of distressed vessel (a) Whoever plunders, steals, or destroys any money, goods, merchandise, or other effects from or belonging to any vessel in distress, or wrecked, lost, stranded, or cast away, upon the sea, or upon any reef, shoal, bank, or rocks of the sea, or in any other place within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. I seldom repeat myself in quoting Law and Events, but necessity endorses reiteration, to wit:
"This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY." (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17; also see, Federalist Papers No. 83; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.)

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741. “Exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 USCS § 1333 is limited to maritime causes of action begun and carried on in rem, while under "saving to suitors" clause of § 1333, suitor who holds in personam claim that might be enforced by suit in personam under admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts may also bring suit, at his election, in state court or on "common law" side of federal court. Lavergne v Western Co. of North America, Inc. (La) 371 So 2d 807 (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Cramer v Association Life Ins. Co. (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937).” 2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY §122 (Footnote 9) (emphasis added). Since the Enrollment Act of March 3, 1863, the United States has been overlaid on to the States and divided the United States into military districts, with a Provost Marshall over each district under the Department of War. This Act forms the basis of our Military Selective Service Act of June 24, 1948, c. 625, 62 Stat. 604 and is codified to title 50 sections 451-473. The military was placed under admiralty jurisdiction by the law of prize and capture under the "An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications upon Captured Property, and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize." This law forms the current basis of title 10 sections 7651-7681 of the Military Code of Justice, this law was passed March 25, 1862 under the Insurrection & Rebellion Acts of August 6, 1861 and July 17, 1862. In 1933 a change was made from the English Common law to the Federal Common Law under the Erie v. Tompkins decision, which is the impetus of The Clearfield Doctrine

under Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943) and the United States v. Kimbell Foods 440 U.S. 715 (1999), where they adopted the U.C.C. rules in formulating Federal Common Law. This is because Maritime Commercial Transactions under the U.C.C. are indicative of the Federal Common Law of Admiralty INTERPOOL LTD v. CHAR YIGH 890 F. 2D PG. 1453 [1989]. Then in 1966 Law, Equity, Civil and Admiralty were all merged under one rule, under the F.R.C.P. this is all laid out in volume 324 pg. 325 of the F.R.D. [Federal Rules Decisions], this means that common law is under admiralty. This is why title 28 1333 (1) gave the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction exclusive of the States for all cases of admiralty maritime jurisdiction, under the saving to suitors clause. Common law was transferred to the district courts of the United States under the Saving to Suitor Clause. Article 3 section 2 gives the district courts of the United States [NOTE: DCUS, NOT USDC] judicial power in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. This is the only side of the court that has Article 3 judicial powers under the War Powers Act of Admiralty. The above is the reason you cannot get a remedy in state court. The following Laws verify and validate Claimants' remedy under the common law in admiralty. 1. The suits in Admiralty Act 46 U.S.C.A. Appendix sections 741-752 2. The Admiralty Extension Act 46 U.S.C.A. section 740 3. The Bills of Lading Act title 49 U.S.C.A. Chapter 147 section 14706 4. The Public Vessels Act 46 U.S.C.A. Appendix sections 781-790 5. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act title 28 sections 1602-1611 6. The Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States title 18 section 7 (1) a citizen of the United States is a vessel. 7. The False Claims Act of title 31 U.S.C.A. section 3729 (a)(7) 8. The Lanham Act of title 15 section 1125(a) 9. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of title 39 sections 1-908 & 36213691 10. The Admiralty, maritime and Prize cases title 28 section 1333 (1)(2) 11. Title 50 Appendix section 7 (c) sole relief & remedy under the trading with the enemy act & (e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order, rule, or regulation made by the president under the authority of this act. TITLE 18 § 241. Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any

State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District [NOTE: these listed are all within dominion and venue of the "Republic", not the corporate STATE] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

TITLE 18 § 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping

or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. True Purpose of all government: “Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..." Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892) But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value. (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369. Claimants' comment addressing "Statutory" "law:" - “But, in fact and in law, such statutes are intended to be applied to those who are here as "residents" in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.” United States v United Mine Workers of America, (1947) 67 S.Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258. Claimant is NOT a resident [res = thing, ident = identified: a thing identified] of "this State." I could write a book on "this State," in fact, I have written several articles on that very subject. I construct from one of my earlier articles that a "resident" is associated and identified in particular as one that holds a reservation on a cemetery lot. Could this be because we are deemed to be agents of debt/death? Death and debt are identical legal "terms." Could this charade expose why city "lots" are not "taxed" by "Higher Powers?" Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962): “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”