Reference Material - For Information Only
|Over time we have collected a lot of reference material. Enjoy - and be cautioned to verify things for yourself!|
An Unconstitutional Law Is VoidAs found in the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..." "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.
What does phrase "Federal Court" mean... Here is something you might want to share.
We in America have what is called a Federal District Court. These courts are the lowest courts in the federal court system, (excluding the federal bankruptcy courts.) The word "Federal" comes from the Latin word "foedus" meaning "foul, hideous, revolting, vile, disgraceful, filthy, disgusting, or repulsive."
The word District comes from the Latin: districtus and distringere. Further break down reveals that dis- (prefix) means "rich, having or containing or bringing wealth." Dis- is also a name of "Pluto, god of the Lower World." On the other hand, trictus (suffix) has the meaning: "nonsense; vexation, troubles; [to] behave in an evasive manner; trifle/delay/dally; [to] cause trouble; [to] pull/play tricks." Distringere means to "stretch out/apart; detain; distract; pull in different directions."
Therefore [it follows that], a Federal District Court is a foul, hideous, revolting, vile, disgraceful, filthy, disgusting, or repulsive court of Pluto, a demon god, used to bring wealth through all sorts of nonsense, vexation, troubles, evasiveness, trifling, delays, dallying, troubles, and tricks; all employed to stretch apart, detain, distract, and pull in different directions - the parties of the litigation.
The Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that the term "willfulness" means:
"...as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
The Supreme Court again said in 1998, while explaining the holding in Cheek, supra, was the exception to the general rule that normally ignorance of the law is not a defense for being alleged to have violated the law, distinguishing gun laws as not within that exception, by explaining its Cheek decision:
"In certain cases involving willful violations of the tax laws, we have concluded that the jury must find that the defendant was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating. See, e.g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991)." Bryan v. U.S., 524 U.S. 184, 194 (1998)
In the Cheek decision and Bryan decision what the Supreme Court said the Government had to prove: that law imposed a duty, and "that one knew of this exact duty and voluntarily violated the duty; and that actual knowledge of pertinent legal duty"; [think 'ignorance of the law'] and "the jury must find defendant was aware of SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE TAX CODE that he/she was charged with violating."
The Government has no evidence of the law to support their willfulness claims.
Check it out for yourself.Willfulness is established by proving these three points:
SOVEREIGNThe term Sovereign defined from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary:
Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that. right and power which necessarily follow is "sovereignty."
By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty" is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise
Pro Se Definedpro se For himself; in his own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court.
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1979, page 1099, pro se For one's own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court.
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, page 1221, pro se adv. adj. [Latin] For oneself; on one's own behalf; without a lawyer <the defendant proceeded pro se> <a pro se defendant> Also termed pro persona; in propria persona
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, 1999, page 1236 pro persona adv. & adj. [Latin] For one's own person; on one's own behalf <a pro persona brief. Sometimes shortened to pro per. See PRO SE.
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1232, pro persona (= for his own person, on his own behalf) is a LATINISM used in some jurisdictions as an equivalent of pro se and in propria persona.
As found in A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 1987, in propria persona [Latin in one's own person] See PRO SE.
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 796, pro se, n. One who represents oneself in a court proceeding without assistance of a lawyer <the third case on the court's docket involving a pro se>. Also termed pro per.
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1237 (also, Black's Law Dictionary, Eight Edition, 2004) pro se = on his own behalf.
The phrase is two words, and should not be hyphenated. Functionally, the phrase may be either adjectival or adverbial. Here it is the former: "In this pro se action, plaintiff contends that..." Just as frequently it is adverbial, as here: "The petitioner appeals pro se from..." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 1987. Latin phrases are generally italicized.
Ed. USAGE: "You say that I am pro se. If you mean that I am without assistance of a lawyer I agree. If you mean anything else, please explain it on the record, as I am not an attorney or a lawyer."
(Words and phrases relating: unrepresented, sui juris)
motor vehiclesHere's a DEFINITION of the "motor vehicles" that are REQUIRED to be REGISTERED in California that is PLAIN ENGLISH. Courtesy of the Court of Appeals of California.
"We conclude that the lower court's construction of Vehicle Code section 260 more reasonably conforms to the legislative intent and that the term "for hire" modifies the word "transportation," so that a commercial vehicle is one in which persons or property are transported for hire. Thus, "commercial vehicles" are of two types: (1) those put to the use of transporting persons for hire, and (2) those designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. In other words, vehicles used for the traditional purposes of public livery or conveyance, such as buses, taxicabs or other vehicles functioning as common carriers or otherwise, operate for a profit. Under appellants' reasoning, the act of renting a passenger automobile for consideration places the vehicle in the commercial category. We hold the fact that a vehicle is hired is not enough to make the vehicle "commercial." In the context of section 11580.9, subdivision (b) of the Insurance Code, the predominate factor which determines whether a vehicle is "commercial" is apparently the use the lessee makes of the vehicle." Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975), 45 Cal.App.3d 223
And coincidentally, it also corresponds to the DEFINITION of a MOTOR VEHICLE in United States Code TITLE 18. Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I Crimes Chapter 2 Aircraft and Motor Vehicles
Use of the ZIP Code is voluntary.
See, Domestic Mail Services Regulations, Section 122.32.
You should also know that the Postal service can not discriminate against the non-use of the ZIP Code. See, "Postal Reorganization Act", Section 403, (Public Law 91-375).
The federal government utilizes the ZIP code to prove that you reside in a "federal district of the District of Columbia". This is why the IRS and other government agencies (state and federal) require a ZIP Code when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter. They claim that this speeds the mail, but this is a sly and subtle TRICK. It is also prima facie evidence that you are a subject of Congress and a "citizen of the District of Columbia" who is "resident" in one of the several States.
The receipt of mail with a ZIP code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices. The government cannot bill a [sovereign state] Illinois / Texas / [etc.] Citizen, because he is not within the purview of the MUNICIPAL LAWS of the District of Columbia. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service has adopted the ZIP code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53, Wednesday, March 19, 1986. One must remember that the Postal Service is a private corporation, a quasi-governmental agency. It is no longer a full government agency. It is like the Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States Marshall Service. They are all outside the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, as private corporations. They are all powerful in their respective areas of responsibility to enforce collection for the federal debt.
So, if you are using a ZIP code, you are in effect saying openly and notoriously that you do not live in the State of Illinois / Texas / [etc.], but, instead are a 'resident' in the Illinois area of the District of Columbia (a federal district). There are some so-called Patriot groups that are consider to be 'patriots for money'. They advocate the use of Title 42 suits (which are for federal citizens only), send mail to you with a ZIP Code, and ask you to do things that place you within the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. Remember these individuals may be agents of the government or, even worse, are advocating a one-world government by the use of the Social Security number and the ZIP code. So you must be aware of the movement towards a one-world government through annihilation or elimination of [sovereign] State Citizens by use of the so-called 14th Amendment and its related laws.
It is this writer's opinion, both as a result of study of page 11 of the National Area ZIP Code Directory; 26 U.S.C. 7621; Section 4 of the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53, of Wednesday, March 19, 1986, Notices at pages 9571 through 9573; of Treasury Delegation Order (TDO) 150-01; the opinion in United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 308, 98 S.Ct.2d 2357, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 (1978); 12 U.S.C. 222; of 31 U.S.C. 103; and as a result of actual experience, that a ZIP Code address is presumed to create a "Federal jurisdiction" or "market venue" or "revenue districts" that override State boundaries, taking one who uses such modes of address outside of a State venue and its constitutional protections and into an international, commercial venue involving admiralty concerns of the "United States", which is a commercial corporation domiciled in Washington, D.C. More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, [located at a local post office], one will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State.
The first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins:
"A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of ..."[cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)].
Note the singular possessive pronoun "its", not "their", therefore carrying the implication that it relates to the "United States" as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the singular sense), not in the sense of being the 50 States of the Union (in the plural sense).
The map shows all the States of the Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.
Properly construed, ZIP Codes can only be applicable in Federal territories and enclaves that may be located within the 50 States of the Union, and to the "United States" and District of Columbia and its territories -- cf. Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio 342, 404 (1856), and U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936) to the effect that "in every state there are two governments; the state and the United States."
Therefore, ZIP Code addresses are for the corporate "United States" and its agents (for example, a customs and duty collector at New York harbor, when they move out into the States of the Union to perform functions delegated to the "United States" by the National/Federal Constitution, or the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, or a U.S. Congressman). But, by propaganda, misleading information and seditious syntax, government has gotten nearly everyone in the 50 States of the Union to use ZIP Codes of address, and that creates a PRESUMPTION or a PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION that one is in such a Federal venue, or that one is such a government agent.
In general, it is well settled in law that Income Tax Statutes apply only to corporations and to their officers, agents, and employees acting in their official capacities, e.g. from Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L.Ed.2d 1, 95 S.Ct. 1538 (1975): "... However, all 'income tax statutes' apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal." Since corporations act only through their officers, employees, etc., the income tax statutes reach out to them when acting in their official capacities, but not as individuals. This is the real purpose for Identifying Numbers -- cf. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) & (g) and 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4.
Use of a ZIP Code address is tantamount to the admission of being a "citizen of the United States" who does not necessarily have the protections of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) when proceeded against by Federal or State authority -Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S.Ct. 448 (1900), but, "All the provisions of the constitution look to an indestructible union of indestructible states", Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; U.S. v. Cathcart, 25 F.Case No. 14,756; In re Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F. Case No. 18,273 (65 C.J. Section 2) -- not known to be overturned.
If you desire to 'help' the Postal Service then use the original postal code following a comma after the street address used -- the original postal code is generally the last two digits of the ZIP code -- do not use any abbreviations [such as "ST", "DR", "IL", "TX", etc.] as they are all copyrighted and indicate their venue.
Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard, HJR 192JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD STANDARD AND ABROGATE THE GOLD CLAUSE
JUNE 5, 1933, H.J.Res.192, 73rd Cong., 1st Session.
JOINT RESOLUTION To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States. Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in payment of debts. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.
List of Responses to Constitutional Rogue Officials
Constitutional Rogue Official Refuses to answer challenges: "Sir, with all due respect, am I to understand that you're impersonating a judge?"
Any malfeasance by an official: "Sir, if you exceed the authority of your office, if you step outside your oath, you instantly vacate your office and lose your immunity."
Attorney fails to respond to any of your motions apparently / therefore no controversy exists: "I make a motion for dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in response to Mr. Attorney's failure to respond to my motion. By that default, the parties are in agreement, and no controversy exists for adjudication, hence there is no subject matter. As Mr. Attorney has had adequate time to respond and has failed to do so, please dismiss this matter immediately as this motion is unopposed [...and must now stand as truth.]"
Biased ruling: "Sir, may I remind you that you are required pursuant to your oath to be impartial."
Official refuses to correct reported crime: "Sir, it appears that you have abandoned t he bench and joined my opponent."
Contempt Threat; Fees for jury trial: "Sir, with all due respect, in Miller v. U.S. it was established that: 'The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.' (Miller v. U.S. 230 F, 2d 286, 489) Am I to understand that you don't have an oath of office?" "Also sir, I believe impeding due exercise of rights is a crime punishable by a year in prison, isn't that correct?"
You have no Constitutional rights [in this court.] "Sir, the Constitution of these united States of America is the supreme law of the land. No other law, rule, regulation or code including contract can supersede it, nor can your authority as a judge, or an imposter acting as a judge. If you will not confirm your oath, you are an imposter, you are unlawfully in the office, step down."
You don't have that right in my Court: "Sir, you have a private court? Then you have no authority to hear this. I'm an American Citizen. I'm guaranteed rights. I'm guaranteed to be heard in an Article II I court. Sir, you have no authority to hear this. Step down."
You don't have a Constitutional right to ... [do the whatever it is they are charging you with.] "Excuse me sir that right was reserved back to me in the Ninth Amendment."
Adverse ruling outside Constitution: "Sir, may I remind you that you are required pursuant to your oath to be impartial." "With due respect, upon what facts, law and evidence do you base your statement or ruling?" "Excuse me, where does it state that in the Constitution, with all due respect? Can you cite that for me?" "I make a motion by special appearance for reconsideration with demand that the Court support the ruling with findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in the absence of same that the ruling be stricken as unsupported opinion, frivolous, void, and not binding in this Court" "Sir, you've been unable to support the ruling with law, so it's of necessity frivolous, without merit, and not binding in this court." "The ruling has been rendered to opinion, and in fact, unsupported opinion which can never be a valid basis for any statement or ruling in a constitutionally competent court, pursuant to your oath."
Case law outside Constitution: "There he goes again, Judge, perjuring his oath and attempting to injure the very Constitution to which he has pledged his loyalty." "Sir, unless you can support your ruling with a Constitutional argument or amendment specific to the Bill of Rights which supports the case law, with due respect the ruling is frivolous, without merit, and not binding in this court." "Judge, by refusing to support his position constitutionally, Mr. Attorney is in rebellion against the Constitution and you must remove him from this court room for his insurrection."
Refusal to remove treasonous attorney: "Then, Mr. Jones is in rebellion against the Constitution and you must remove him from this court room for his insurrection." "Sir, are you aware that if you step outside your oath, you no longer have authority and jurisdiction. Under the fourteenth amendment, you are no longer a public official; you waive your immunity, and are personally liable for your actions? You need to remove yourself from this situation." "Sir, if you refuse to remove a confessed traitor from this court room, then you are condoning, aiding and abetting the insurrection and colluding with him in a conspiracy to commit treason against the American people by denying them their unalienable rights. You must remove him at once or you will be disqualified and instructed to step down."
Judge says, "You're under contract." Well O.K., the Constitution specifically states that it does not interfere with contracts. One might question, rather, as to the existance of the [alleged] original, and when and where the contract was agreed to, and demand evidence be brought forth of full disclosure, the other party, or parties, and that you had agreed willingly and knowingly. However, it is very much doubtful that any judge is going to tell you flat out that "...you're under contract". They may know it, but they won't state it.
Let it be known that I am a man on the land acting in good faith in defense of private property and it is not now nor has it ever been my intention to avoid paying any obligation, or performing to a liability, that I may lawfully owe. In order that I can arrange to pay, or otherwise discharge, the obligation I may owe, please document and verify the obligation and duly enter it into the record. (...pursuant to UCC 3-501) (Without prejudice UCC 1-308), (Common law UCC 1-103)
List of Responses to Constitutional Rogue Officials Not intended as legal advice use at own risk VOID where prohibited by law.
On the subject of plea bargain.
The courts' [today] only means of operation [read, survival] is through contracts.
The county commissioners have interagency contracts with the judges, the judges have contracts with the Attorney General, the Attorney General has contracts with the Feds. There are literaly thousands of contracts, memorandums of understanding, interagency agreements, etc., in place. This is the only way a defacto government is able to operate.
They have to have a contract they can enforce. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
(Consider that a contract is mostly in favor of the offerer - not the offeree!)
This is why a plea bargain, which is a contract, is binding. Both parties agreed. Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Anyone who believes in liberty and freedom who has ever witnessed a plea bargain hearing is sickened. The judge says something like, "John Doe, you do understand you waive all your rights?" John Doe after being proded by his Attorney, answerers, "Yes." The Judge, "You do understand you have no right to appeal?" "Yes." Yhe Judge, "You understand that when you accept this plea that you are bound by the agreement?" "Yes."
Do you see what the Judge is doing? Laying out the terms of the contract so that it is binding. If some scared smuck agrees to the terms, Voila! (Another relatively peaceful day at the office fot the smuck's Attorney.) Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In order to get an agreed consent, the poor guy is hammered with threats of, "...if you go to jury trial you could get two lifetimes, and you'll have to serve them both!" Enough to scare 'most any one to death.
Remeber that is it much easier for your [beloved] Attorney to convince you to plea bargain that for him, or her, to do anything for you and besides he, or she, actually works for the other side anyway. It doesn't matter if the Attorney is your mother, brother, sister, whatever, Their allegiance is to the court, their profession, the law and somewhere thereafter maybe to you. (Money talks and if you have enough you're probably not reading this.)
Being a court watcher, I was witness to a very brave and wonderful man in court one day. He doesn't understand [their] court procedure, has not studied their laws, he doesn't understand statutes and conformity. What he does understand is that he has unalienable rights and he will not allow any threats or coercions to lien those rights.
As I watchd, he was being presurred by a very intelligent, resourceful judge who was attempting to get him to commit to an either or situation. The judge kept telling him that he was tired of playing around and the guy WOULD chooses either or. The judge called in the Sheriif's deputies in an effort to intimidate the guy. His name is Ben, and Ben didn't budge. The judge applied more threats and pressure. Ben finally said, with a straight back and a very clear voice, "I know that you have the power to force me to go to trial, but, I do not consent and I will not go willingly." At that the judge paid him what may be considered the highest compliment. He looked at Ben and then said, "Hier stehe Ich, Hier stehe Ich." For the who doesn't speak German, those are the words of Martin Luther to the panel that had made the decision to send him to Rome, to Rome and to his death.
"Here I stand."
At that point the judge took Ben and his friend into the back room and tried a tad bit more coercion. Then the judge told them, "I don't know what to do. You men are not afraid, and this system operates on fear." Without fear, the system is worthless.
Are you being frightened into coercion? Are you going to, out of fear, lie about something you didn't do and say you did? Hey, even if you did do something is whatever you did worth it? Are you going to enter into an agreement and be bound by the terms even though you don't understand what it will mean to you? Remember, the contract is binding and is an enforcable agreement. And remember that the fact that it would be otherwise illegal makes no difference, because, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Consider that honorable people don't play these games.
Remember the words of Patrick Henry, "I know not what others may choose, but for me give either liberty or give me death!"
Each and every one of us need to consider the idea -- is it better to die in honor or to live in dishonor???Dessie
|"Sin is denial of the right to thrive." -Anonymous|
Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly.
Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2010
All Rights Reserved
H O M E