DEATH THROES PART 2

    The Grand Jury only determines if there is enough evidence to take it to the next level, a trial. There the accused will have the right to face their accuser.

    I do not believe that the Grand Jury has the authority to issue orders or sentence anyone, that is reserved for the petit jury. Without a trial, we deny the accused the right to due process.

That’s right..

This is the same with a Jural Assembly, whose actions are similar to the actions of a Grand Jury. I intend to ask for input from the states in order to draw up a common law procedure for the Courts and the Grand Juries. This will not be a binding document, but a suggestion for the free states to use so that we can have a fairly uniform procedure throughout the nation. While every state does not have to match their neighbor exactly, the people should be able to travel freely throughout the states and not get hooked into some kind of problem because one state is operating out in left field.

This is not the same as a Jural Assembly. A Jural Assembly is not even anywhere close to a Grand Jury. It’s function is entirely the opposite, than that of a Grand Jury.

The word “Grand” means criminal, because it is a jury to determine criminality of an issue, while a Jural Assembly is a group of all the Jurists, people that are of a certain body politic in law, that get together to resolve issues concerning their body politic, issues that need to be resolved and taken care of, regarding their body politic. A Republic or State Jural Assembly does not have the authority or lawful right to deal with criminal issues. That is reserved for the Grand Jury and subsequently the Courts.

Read your Constitution.

A Republic Jural Assembly is nothing more then an Amendment VII common law court. A common law court cannot try and hear criminal cases. They can only decide and hear issues that are not of criminal nature but still have to be decided on and settled by the people. While a common law court has only a certain fixed number of names drawn by the presiding Justice, or a Justice of the Peace, such as 9-12, to settle the issue, the Justice convening a Republic Jural Assembly, needs to invite a quorum or all the jurists in any given locality that will be affected by the Resolutions made.

Only a Justice or a Justice of the Peace is authorized and qualified to convene and hold both a State and a Republic Jural Assembly, because it is just a common law court. The only difference is a common law court convenes with a fixed amount of jurists such as 9-12, while the Jural Assembly is the full body of Jurists in any given area notified to attend. That’s the only difference. I am the Chief Justice on the One Supreme Court. I have the duty and lawful responsibility to hold Court anytime and anywhere there is a need, sitting on any circuit or district court I am found to be at. Pennsylvania is a district in the Republic. The Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly is a Republic district common law court. Anything decided in it cannot again be re-examined in any United States (Republic) court then according to the rules of the common law. The rules of the common law court I held was very simple…. I invited all the people and laid out the issues and I let them decide. I DO NOT understand what the issue of question is here, or why it is difficult to understand. In Pennsylvania I was the only one with the proper authority, qualified to convene a Republic Jural Assembly for the Pennsylvanians.Why is it being questioned?

A Republic Jural Assembly is an Assembly of the Jurists in the Republic, bound by and constitutors of the United States Constitution by ratification. They resolve issues having to do with matters in jurisdiction of the Republic in their State.

Some of these would be judicial review of erring Republic district judges and publicly censuring them and sending this to the Judicial Committee. If the Judicial Committee does not act appropriately upon it, then they need to send it to the House for impeachment vote. They cannot remove or impeach a judge, as that is reserved for a Constitutional procedure process.

Reviewing and removing Republic Grand Jury Foreman and their juries if they are found wanting and refuse to be corrected. The Republic Jural Assembly is the watchdog for the Grand Juries because the Republic members are We, the People and anyone engaged in any governmental service capacity as the Grand Jury, answers to the people. The Grand Jury is considered the fourth branch of government but private, and not all of them are regulated by the Courts and are subject to We, the People.

The Republic Jural Assembly can call a Grand Jury to action if necessary.

The Republic Jural Assembly cannot dissolve a standing State or Republic Court Grand Jury as those function for, and are subject to the Court.

The Republic Jural Assembly is the highest level of authority, for issues that are not delegated by Constitution.

The Republic Jural Assembly can make decisions that affect all the rest of the people if the people had opportunity to attend and were notified of the subject-matter.

A free State Jural Assembly is an assembly of State Constitution Jurists bound by ratification to their State Constitution and they decide issues having to do with their State Constitution jurisdiction.

Both Republic and State Jural Assemblies, the prerequisite for standing and being lawful, is if all the members or a quorum of them, have been notified or invited to the Assembly.

If a Republic Jural Assembly would want to decide issues that would only affect Republic issues in that county, then all the jurists in that county are invited to attend.

If a Republic Jural Assembly would want to decide issues that would affect the entire state, then all the jurists in that state are invited to attend.

The same way with a State Jural Assembly.

 In Pennsylvania all the Republic jurists were invited.

They were all notified of the subject-matter at hand to be discussed upon, and that decisions would likely be made.

Proxy letters were included in the invitation for any members wanting to give input on the subject-matter but would be unable to attend.

The Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly was lawfully convened as a common law court by a presiding Republic Justice living in the State.

Only Resolutions were made regarding Republic issues.

The Grand Jury foreman was dismissed and his Grand Jury to not have any lawful standing regarding having anything to do with Republic business due to

incompetence and untruthfulness and engaging in libel and slander against the Republic officials.

The Republic Jural Assembly did not dismiss him from serving for the State, but only that regarding any Republic business he is not recognized due to suspected sedition against the Republic.

The Republic district Justice was publicly censured for not fulfilling the role as a Republic Justice but rather engaging in sedition.

The people that refused to co-operate with the We, the Peoples common law court….. Republic Jural Assembly were disciplined by the Republic Jural Assembly. They were removed to the status of not have any standing in the Republic till they acknowledge

the Resolutions and acknowledge to abide by them, then they too will be accepted again.

    The actions of the Jural Assembly will also be looked into to determine its Constitutionality. I am asking the Committee members to review the procedures and action of the Jural Assembly. We want to discover who has the right to call a jural assembly, what is its Constitutional authority, how many people does it take to have a quorum, does the jural assembly have the authority to make rulings and enforce them without holding a trial? Wouldn’t that also be a denial of due process? Does it take a majority of the people in a free state to pass a resolution or are we going to let a few decide for the many?

A Republic Jural Assembly is just a Amendment VII common law court with all the people invited that are affected by the settlement of a decision as opposed to a small handful of people solving a non-criminal case. A Republic Jural Assembly does not have to do “due process of law”. That’s reserved for issues that have to be tried in the Courts. A Republic Jural Assembly is the people speaking, and We, the People decide the issues. Naturally they would want to be fair and allow the problem people to testify and be properly heard before Resolutions are made. In a Republic form of Government, a few people decide issues for the masses, such as your Judicial Committee does. A small hand full of men decide issues that will affect many people. A Republic Jural Assembly is not that way. Everyone is invited to attend, subject matter exposed and those that show up, then get to make the Resolutions.

    These are a few of the questions that have come up during our initial look at this dispute. I am asking each party to submit their thoughts and supporting documents. While we have received information from one side, we have not received anything from the other. The other side is rebellious. There is only a small hand-full of people with the rebellion. The core is 4 people. Jim Wright. Mike Radogna, Steve Shelly and Will Spencer along with a few of their friends. All the rest want to join the Republic and do the right thing. Pennsylvania has about 78 people signed up and there is only about 26 that are active. The others are not much interested, don’t care or cannot afford to travel or to participate, but they have been notified just the same, prior to the Republic Jural Assembly and will be notified of these Resolutions and will be asked to acknowledge them.

    We are not asking for anything discussed in the Grand Jury, but we would like to receive a copy of the complaint and copies of any evidence that would be forwarded to a court for a trial so that we might be able to make intelligent decisions. The information we receive will not be shared with the other party or with anyone outside of the Committee. We will issue a finding of facts at the close of the investigation to the House with any recommendations we might have reached. Our recommendations to the House are not binding on the states. It will be up to the whole house to decide if there is enough of a concern to address the issue with a Bill and try and pass a law. I cannot share my personal opinion as I and the Committee must set aside our opinion and/or bias and decide the matters before them according to the law and the Constitution.

I assume you are making a request to the Grand Jury. It would be nice if they would co-operate with your requests. I highly doubt they will. That’s the way they have been treating me since April. They have completely ignored me and

I am of 0 significance to them. Its their way of sticking their nose up at the Republic and telling us they have a different plan. According to information I have and have send to you, their plan is to prove that we are a fraud. If they would co-operate with you then we would not have this problem. They would never have had a Grand Jury to start with, because the only issue here in Pennsylvania is their no-response to the Republic. The Grand Jury hearing was every intention to be just what they are making it to be. Its not a mistake. They have planned this and they probably have planned this for all you guys too. I am only number one out of the many to come, that they probably will treat this way. Good luck.

Part of the vendetta they have against me was that in their minds they believe I was responsible for the Press Release that Tim Pledger wrote about Jim Wright. I tried to explain to them that I had nothing to do with that letter but they aren’t buying that.

So please make sure that this Press Release is taken down and my apology letter gets put back up. That’s why I wrote it.

Nathan

45) It is my understanding that Nathan J Peachey was chastised by the Committee Chairman for his action, stating, “

I find your statement that a Republic Jural Assembly does not have to follow the law and give anyone affected their right to due process, very disturbing. I believe that goes directly against the Constitution and the Republican form of government. Please enlighten the Committee and me as to how you come to that conclusion. While, We, the People may be speaking, not all of we the people have had their right to speak. I can understand if you sent out letters to all the people explaining the planned referendums and asking them for their input and vote at some time in the future, but to send out proxy’s and ask for an immediate decision makes no sense to me. The referendums would have to be placed before the people and allow them to research them and have time for debate before they are voted on. This problem of putting forth an issue and demanding a response immediately is unrealistic. The people do not have time to work things out in their mind, to weigh the pros and cons. We cannot ask the people to make snap decisions and then find out later that that decision was not in the best interest of the people. Then it is 10 times harder to reverse that decision and correct it. Give the people time to decide what they feel is right. In our Assembly we put forth an idea for discussion and if it is worthy, someone will make a motion to for a committee to discuss the pros and cons and then return to the assembly with their findings. The assembly as a whole has the right to comment and a discussion follows. Then a vote is scheduled for another assembly. After each assembly a copy of the minutes are sent to all members of the assembly and everyone is kept up to date on the ongoing discussions and we welcome personal input or email input which is shared with the whole assembly. So everyone is involved with the decisions made by the assembly. “

46) It is my understanding that the Pennsylvania Attorney General shared his feelings stating, “I am not looking to tear down what has been created on either the State or National level but the fact remains this is a bottom up construction of government that is working in reverse. Nathan Peachey stepped into our system (Pennsylvania Free State) and started making directives. This has created a split in our state structure.  Nathan Peachey has sucessfully placed a wedge in our Pennsylvania Free State structure causing some members to remove themselves as jurists or it so appears. Until National comes to understand they are to follow our total Free State directives (all 50 Free States) we are simply spinning our wheels. I am aware of similiar issues as these that have been imposed upon other Free States.

At this time we have a second Grand Jury in our Free State and there may already be a third started due the non-sense of Nathan Peachey. This National Committee that has been created to oversee us as Free States is insane. My suggestion might be to address each State individually to create its own committee to oversee the National on a unified basis. National must answer to us as a complete unit of 50 Free States.

As long as National can say "I'm the Boss" and get away with it we will never have what we are attempting to accomplish. Maybe a contract between all Free States is needed to impose restrictions or rules upon the National by a vote of each Grand Jury (or Committee) for resolution of matters such as these. Any objection from National or anyone else on this issue will clearly be noted and should be considered by each Free State.”

47) It is my understanding that I was removed without notice or reason from the National Grand Jury weekly calls. Upon inquiry, I was informed by Randy Miller, National Grand Jury Foreman, on August 14, 2011, “Wil, when information comes forth that a foreman has been removed from his/her position they are removed from this forum and the conference calls. Whatever you do in your free state to remedy this situation is entirely up to you.”

48) It is my understanding that several members of other states have attempted on the behalf of Nathan J Peachey, J Timothy Turner, or the National Judicial Committee, to either advise or question me personally regarding the actions of our collective Jural Assembly. These are people that ought to know the difference between a state action and a personal issue, including, but not limited to Donna Kozak, Nebraska; Fred Moore South Carolina; Rick Winer, RRB; Ron Beal North Carolina; Chris Salonia, unidentified.

49) It is my understanding that on August 16, 2011 Nathan J Peachey sent an email to all members of the Pennsylvania free state Jural Assembly, informing them of a telephone jural assembly to be held that very same day.

50) It is my understanding that Nathan J Peachey made announcement that he was unsure of his actions at his previous meeting of July 9, that he would be bringing changes, that resolutions were now void and its best to not remove people.

51) It is my understanding that this email notice was accompanied with a document called “Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly Nullification August 16 2011”.

52) It is my understanding this document gave false information and a lot of unclear communication, justification for gross error and a full rescinding of all resolutions of July 9, 2011, as follows;

 On or about June 21 2011 I emailed an invitation to my fellow Pennsylvanians to join

together in a Pennsylvania Jural Assembly on June 28th 2011 for the purpose of

discussing issues regarding Pennsylvania and the vacant offices and to discover and learn

how we might bring resolution. Due to distance and time constraints for an evening

meeting many were unable to make the meeting.

On July 5 2011 I issued a Writ of Appearance to the Pennsylvanians to appear to a

Republic Jural Assembly on July 9 2011 as the Chief Justice of the Republic, so we could

discuss and resolve certain issues concerning Pennsylvania and the Republic that were

not being addressed and resolved otherwise.

Approximately 22 people gathered to convene the meeting. Approximately 5

Pennsylvanians actively engaged in the opposition of me convoking a Republic Jural

Assembly, initiated by a Writ of Appearance and signed as the Chief Justice of the

Republic/acting as the moderator or Justice of the Peace. They provided no Constitutional

evidence that I was acting unlawfully, only conclusionary statements and they departed.

Fifteen members of the Republic Jural Assembly convened and certain issues were

discussed and Resolutions were made passing unanimously. The Republic Jural

Assembly adjourned.

I agreed to the Republic Jural Assembly to notify all the Pennsylvanians at once

regarding the Resolutions and to request acknowledgment within fifteen (15) days by all

those wishing to remain with the Republic.

Upon the expiration of ten (10) days no evidence or documentation was provided to, or

received from Nathan Peachey about any deficiency on his part from the Judiciary

Committee or the House.

However upon further personnel investigating into this matter I can see where the Writ of

Appearance, being signed as the Chief Justice of the Republic and using its Seal, could

have been construed by some to not be Constitutional although I had not meant it that

way and I have not intentionally and knowingly attempted to commit anything

unconstitutionally. It was only due to the fact that I was not able to communicate properly

with Steve Shelly regarding issues I felt I needed to be able to share with the Republic

Jural Assembly somehow or someway. But the way the Writ of Appearance posed certain

questions regarding the Pennsylvania free state Government, I see how it could have

easily been taken the wrong way, or perceived to be a power take over when I had not

intended it by any means to be that way. I simply felt I had things that needed to be

brought to the attention of the Pennsylvanians and Steve Shelly refused to help me with

that by refusing to communicate with me.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to those that it caused offence for me

convening a Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly using the office as Chief Justice for

the Republic to resolve issues even though I was only taking the implied position of

acting Justice of the Peace or Assembly moderator. I understand how it could have been

construed to have been inappropriate and not constitutional. On the other hand we often

have very little reference points we can use in a lot of things as we are building this

Republic and it does take a lot of tolerance and grace with each other. Conclusionary

statements that something is, or is not constitutional, are always subject to different

viewpoints. I am asking all of you to extent your Grace to me and together we can finish

the job that we have set out to do in reinstating the Constitutional Republic.

For the sake of Peace and Unity with all those Pennsylvanians that came to join the

Assembly session but felt they could not stay because they felt it was unconstitutional, I

apologize to you and I hereby abrogate and rescind the Writ of Appearance and the

Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly and my involvement of it as moderator or of

taking the position of acting Justice of the Peace as a Chief Justice.

Here are the Resolutions that were passed and how they have changed due to expiration

of need or change of viewpoint and abrogation of involvement and rescinding.

RESOLUTIONS

Resolved:

Republic Justice Steve Shelly for district Pennsylvania is censured for bad behavior

contrary to the oath of his office for a Republic district Justice.

This Resolution is not valid anymore as Nathan Peachey has had a personal visit on July

22, 2011, with Steve Shelly where positive affirmations were given by Steve Shelly to

Nathan Peachey to resolve the issue of his position of being two (2) different justices, the

Pennsylvania free state and a Republic district Judge.

Nathan also apologized and asked forgiveness from Steve Shelly on July 22 2011 for the

offence of a personal threat to the safety of him, through delivering direct, specific

scripture passages via electronic media.

Resolved:

Make a motion to Jim Fitzgerald Republic national Chief Ambassador to permanently

remove Republic Ambassador Al Tarkka as Ambassador for Pennsylvania.

This Resolution is not valid anymore as Al Tarkka has resigned as an Ambassador and

Nathan Peachey has apologized to Al and Judy Tarkka on or about July 21 2011 for

anything that he said or felt about them that were untrue and incorrect.

Resolved:

Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly has removed Will Spencer as Republic Grand

Jury Foreman and dissolution his Grand Jury for Pennsylvania Republic.

This Resolution is null and void as the Republic Jural Assembly Resolutions do not

stand.

Resolved:

Pennsylvania Jural Assembly removed from the Republic all of those who walked out of

the Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly, due to conspiring with those exhibiting bad

behavior rather then building the Republic.

This Resolution is null and void as the Republic Jural Assembly Resolutions do not

stand. This form of discipline has always raised more questions then it has resolved, in

other states as well. For us it should lay the question to rest since this Resolution is now

null and void.

Resolved:

A motion was resolved that all those people in Pennsylvania who have joined the

Republic shall be notified of these Pennsylvania Republic Jural Resolutions and shall

have opportunity of fifteen (15) days to respond and request to remain as a member of the

Republic and acknowledge agreement to these Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly

Resolutions, or they will be removed from the Republic for lack of the Pennsylvanians

not knowing who they are and if they have good and helpful intentions or not.

This Resolution is null and void as the Republic Jural Assembly Resolutions do not

stand.

For those of you that supported the Republic Jural Assembly Resolutions, as many of you

did, it is up to all of us to join together and support the Republic and let our voices be

heard to bring about the change we desire to see.

I have many duties to attend to with the Republic One Supreme Court and do not have

the time to be hindered by distractions of petty strife. I trust you. I will always go the 2nd

mile in the face of adversity like Jesus Christ commanded; rather then waste valuable

energy by the exercise of strife and contention. I wish you Pennsylvanians all the best and

it was a pleasure helping you to reinstate our Republic. If at any time you desire help or

the way is open for me to attend your meetings as a Pennsylvanian, I will do so. Again I

am sorry where I have disappointed you and I hope that all can be well here in

Pennsylvania. There is a lot of work that needs to be done here in Pennsylvania and I am

willing to help and assist in whatever way I can.

In His Name; Jesus Christ

52) It is my understanding that although Nathan J Peachey submitted his apology and has recinded his sanctimonious resolutions, I was still not reinstated on the Grand Jury Foreman calls and Skype venue.

52) It is my understanding that on August 18, 2011 notice was sent to all Pennsylvania free state Jural Assembly members that a second jural assembly would be meeting at a second location on the same day as the already scheduled Pennsylvania free state Jural Assembly meeting on August 21. This meeting to be held at Simion Stoltzfus’s home.

53) It is my understanding the announcement for the new and inauthentic assembly meeting had an attachment as follows;

 Pennsylvania Assembly

August 21, 2011 1:00 pm

Open Invitation to all Pennsylvanians in Pennsylvania free state

My name is Simeon Stoltzfus

There are two (2) groups in Pennsylvania free state. It is very easy to notice. We are now all faced with having to make an honest decision of which group we want to support and work with. Its time for all of us to get off the fence and put our whole united effort into supporting and building that group we each choose to be with and lay aside our childish offences. Most people in Pennsylvania free state already have done that, from deep within their own selves, they have already decided inwardly which side they

support by their own actions, their interpretation of law, how they carry out their duties in the Republic, who they communicate with, what they do with the emails and how they uphold the Republic and state Constitutions etc. You are welcome and free to make the calling of your choice and identify with either group of your choice and then stay there and be loyal with them. The one group in Pennsylvania free State belonging with Will Spencer, Steve Shelly and associates, having recently submitted allegations and charges under oath, on the public domain that can now be used as undeniable court-admissible evidence for the record without reservation, against them, that they are not for a Constitutional Republic and that they are taking multiple roles such as being both the

Victim, the Accused and the Accuser, and exercising the duties by impersonation of a Prosecutor, the Grand Jury, the Jury, the Judge, the House and the impeachment Senate, completely disregarding our Republic Constitutional three (3) branch form of Government with all its checks and balances that they have taken an oath to uphold. This is unlawful, evidence of sedition on the public domain, trespass against We, the People, and against our Republic Constitution, the supreme law of the land. We will not

tolerate this. We are just coming out of a de facto system and we will not go back into one again. The other Pennsylvania free State assembly of Pennsylvanians, convened on July 9th, 2011 at Galen Yoder’s, in Republic Jural Assembly to discuss issues. They did pass Resolutions but since some of them have expired on validity before they were released, while some things and viewpoints have changed, so all of them have been nullified and struck from the Record. All Resolutions are void and dismissed from that Pennsylvania Republic Jural Assembly. As for me and my House, I can and will no longer support, tolerate or identify with the above mentioned group and have chosen to dissociate myself with any of their actions, do not uphold any of their

accusations, findings, claims and beliefs although they are welcome to join this Republic Jural Assembly if they desire to uphold that which we will support and uphold, but I believe their slanderous accusations and charges they have provided for the public domain, against Republic Officials, is court-admissible solid evidence that has spoken of another direction they want to go; one that has caused a separation between us and the original intention of reinstating the Republic in Peace, Friendship and Unity. I welcome everyone that holds and supports what we support, on my property and those who are

committed to those people, in that Pennsylvania free state in union with the Republic for the united States of America and President James Timothy Turner Administration to join this Pennsylvania free State Republic Jural Assembly, this Sunday afternoon.

You are welcome to join us in Unity, Friendship and Peace on August 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm on my private property. We fully support the de jure interim President James Timothy Turner Republic for the united States of America and his administration. We uphold the Holy Bible, Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776, Republic Constitution 1787 and the 1791 Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land for our governing documents.

Common Law Rules of Attendance pursuant to the Constitution Bill of Right ARTICLE (1)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1. All Assembly members agree to be subject to these rules of attendance under the common law.

2. No one that has engaged in, or wishes to promote sedition, division, dissention and slanderous accusations and who support those, who have committed common law, or judicial unlawful actions against We, the Peoples Constitution, or against any Republic or State official without publicly repenting to the Assembly, can come on my property.

3. No one that wants to be with and work subversively on both sides of the fence by phone or email or any other means with any group, or other subversion tactics, other then the Pennsylvania free State Republic that we are supporting, can come on my property.

4. Only those that want to build the Republic and support President James Timothy Turner and his Administration of the Republic for the united States of America can come on my property this Sunday afternoon, in Peace, Friendship and Unity.

5. I reserve and maintain exclusivity of all my common law rights to call on and remove any offenders from off my property, anyway that is necessary.

August 21, 2011; 1:00 pm

1. Meet and greet and sign Pennsylvania free State Republic Jural Assembly covenant forms,

2. Moderator Simeon Stoltzfus, Assembly called to order,

3. Chet Ricewick, Scripture reading and a word of prayer and moderating the Confession session,

4. Open free-will confessions for anyone that feels they have broken any of the above rules, or rules of peace at any time and desire to be cleared with the Assembly in peace,

5. Opportunity for anyone in Pennsylvania free State to call any Assembly member to the floor on any issue of wrong-doing they have against anyone and extent grace to make things right,

6. Galen Yoder, moving forward in Peace, Friendship and Unity and how the Word of God is essential in the success of this Republic,

7. Opportunity for any Pennsylvania Senators, Representatives or any State Officers to share,

8. Republic Chief Justice Nathan Peachey, on the Republic Constitution and what it means to coexist in a quasi-relationship with the State Constitution. Opportunity will be given to have all Assembly members ratify by their own signatures, the 1787 Constitution, (if they have not done so yet) and become a permanent member of that Pennsylvania free State that supports and is in union with the Republic for the united States of America,

9. Assembly review of candidate Galen Yoder, for the Pennsylvania free State Governor, or any other candidate brought forth; absent any Constitutional objections, the Assembly votes for Governor and charges it with executive duties and responsibilities for Pennsylvania free State,

10. Governor addresses the Assembly and whatever he desires to bring to the Assembly,

11. Assembly reviews the proposed version of the Pennsylvania free State Budget to be submitted to

the Republic,

12. Any other business that anyone is so inclined to bring to the Assembly,

Closing with Prayer and bring your own food for evening break

Galen Yoder Simeon Stoltzf

54) It is my understanding that many good intentioned people are being misled by manipulation and misunderstanding being without knowledge of the personal due diligence required in order to truly experience sovereign freedom.

55) It is my understanding that Nathan J Peachey released a personal apology on August 20, 2011 to myself and Steve Shelly concerning his jural assembly actions and informed us the resolutions had been struck from the records.

56) It is my understanding that many Pennsylvania free state Jural Assembly members are confused and upset regarding this continuing manipulative usurpation of power aimed at inhibiting the progress of our free state’s preparation for possible future events, learning best practices for remedy for financial and legal problems caused by fraudulent de facto practices, growing our numbers within our state, connecting with other states for unity and sharing and mutual support, etc. From a concerned member;   To all free Pennsylvanians,

   It's been quite a roller Coaster ride For us, the ride stops here. We've been Christians for more than three decades. We also know the difference between good and evil. So it is not our place to judge anything for another; and everyone must take the responsibility to draw their own conclusions.

    We have tried to live our lives with an emphasis on giving a hand up to those in need, doing what needs to be done and putting others needs before our own. And when we joined the republic, we thought that this is what It stood for. We have met wonderful people who share the same aspiration and goals. So Why are we being divided? We cannot see why it has become necessary to divide Pennsylvania into two groups. Yet, one or two are telling us there are two groups. The Original and a New Group. The only difference we can see between the two is that the Original demands accountability and truth and the new group does blindly what they are told. This makes us wonder. Who is telling them what to do and why? Any problems from any situation should have been brought before the Original Grand Jury through the proper channels. This was not done. Instead, people were approached individually which gave us the Nathan Peachy problem. Once again the simple has become complicated. It is our belief that God has called us all too unite for the purpose of being free and enjoying all of His abundant blessings. It is just that simple. Either we are free or we are not. We are tired of being afraid of whom we are to associate with, unnecessary secret  discussions and meetings in isolation, A recent conference call where proper notice was not given, in our case, less than one hour by email. Yes...this made us upset.. because this left us out of the loop and made us look incompetent. Where does this type of nonsense come from? We cannot find peace, unity or freedom in meeting on private property with stipulations, ultimatums and threat of removal "by any way that is necessary."

    We ask this....Why meet in this manner? Where is the freedom in this? We ask where has this fear come from? 1 John 4:18 .Again we ask where has this fear come from? We believe it is safe to say that this fear is not of good, but, of evil. And if there is anything that is de facto......this is it. Eph. 6:12-20. We all should conduct ourselves accordingly.

   Please do not take us the wrong way. We refuse to disrespect anyone..This is how we feel. And we also need grace. In the Original group in before last meetings, in our haste to get things done, prayer has been over-looked, so we are not perfect. We like our Jury Foreman, Will Spencer, because he is a truth seeker and the truth is what will ultimately set us all free. And there is no dishonor in that. We realize that under the current de facto system that nobody is truly free. But, it is our God given right to think freely and no one has the right to take it from us. We believe that many of us have gone the 3rd, 4th and 5th mile for this cause. And, we have just about every diverse background in Pennsylvania. represented in our group. If we can't come together in small numbers, how on earth can we come together in larger numbers? We all think differently, and that's okay. However, our freedom is at stake if we head this new direction. We do not believe the Original grand jury is causing the division. So, who is dividing us? The last minute second meeting only causes further division.. These are not

honorable tactics. We the people will not be silenced in this manner.

We have decided that we will not travel hundreds of miles for a cause which is dividing us all. But we will travel to represent freedom for Pennsylvania and it's freedom seeking people. So, we will be attending the Original group meeting until all the truth comes has come out.

                                    God bless everyone in Pennsylvania.

                                    JameyKarl /Sally/ Karl, Jr. Behringer

57) It is my understanding that the Pennsylvania free state shares this problematic experience of top down National bullying, Judicial usurpation, unauthorized interference, unlawful demands and lack of accountability as befits the leadership of a free nation. We have validation of multiple state governments created and violations of all sorts from at least 36 states, including Oregon, New York, Utah, Illinois, Nexada, Indiana, Arizona, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Michigan.

58)  Therefore be it now known to any and all interested, concerned or affected parties, that I, Wil Spencer, state clearly, specifically, and unequivocally, my intent to peacefully and without malice, share my statements and experiences here, with sincere intent for the betterment of the knowledge of my fellow man, in honor and truth, to assist them to avoid risk of becoming ensnared in de facto entrapment or in any way receiving dishonor at the hands of deceit from clever men.

Wil Spencer

For all those people in dozens of states who have been through the same story themselves this will seem familiar in the extreme and each time an individual state was invaded and taken over by national thugs, Nathan Peachey was not only aware but deeply involved. He has no understanding whatsoever of the intent of our founding fathers, our founding documents or factual history. The very idea that our Constitution was written in secrecy is ridiculous to start with. How, if that were the case did the woman on the street in Philadelphia know to approach Benjamin Franklin as he came out of the building and ask of him, “what have you given us sir?” to which he answered, “A   Republic madam, if you can keep it.” Even in 1787 it would have been impossible for 56 men to reamin locked up in a building in secrecy for four months in order to write secret documents.

Nathan Peachey argued with me for over an hour on the phone when I insisted the 1787 Constitution did not and could not have included the Bill of Rights as that set of Articles was not even written and was not ratified until December of 1791. His answer was, “can you prove it?” This is a standard de facto tactic, to make statements and challenge those who object to obvious error prove the truth. Of course at the time I was holding those documents in my hand, in black and white and written in perfect English of the time. On two separate occasions I urged Nathan to read Original Intent by David Barton to gain a better understanding of our founders intentions but he continues to deliberately twist our history and the words of our founders to suit the top down agenda of his bosses. He continues to enlist the help of other states to “go on down and straigten out other states” as he has done twice just recently in Indiana. This has resulted in literally dozens of people pretending to represent the people of their states with no understanding of the true structure of our de jure Republic let alone the original intent of our founders as their only reference is Nathan Peacheys convoluted and deliberately misleading instruction on the same. Perhaps this is the reason CW Wright  kept insisting to me that he is the president of the WHOLE CONGRESS! Not even the so called Vice President of this fantasy understands our structure.

This has not been set up as a second and even more controlling de facto by accident!

For those who have been kept in the dark, take heed for if you suddenly demand answers you will become targets yourselves. On the other hand why do you want to continue association with this farce?

This is how real patriots view this joke...  http://www.islandmakers.us/turner/

There is much I cannot share yet as I said above but it is long past time for the public to be warned viraly about this de facto trap.

Remember, no real Constitutional Republic would or could have anything to do with the Hague, the enforcement arm of the United Nations, a Communist organization run by the CFR and Trillateral Commission. These are the very people responsible for the police state we are currently living in. They have brought us Agenda 21, the International Property Maintenance Code, Restricted Travel, Open borders resulting in millions of illegals draining our economy and perpetrating violence on us, Loss of Liberty, Re-distribution of Wealth, Depopulation plans via biological genocide..... so Turner claims to have filed papers with the Hague why? The Republic needs to be recognized by the enemy why? American people can't be free without U.N. Sanction?

THIS ORGANIZATION IS INDEED SUFFERING ITS DEATH THROES SO DON'T GO DOWN WITH IT. AMERICA NEEDS STOUT HEARTS, INTELLIGENT MINDS AND TRUE PATRIOTS NOT BLIND FOLLOWERS.

YOU ARE THE ANSWER!

TLGA