The most potent article that PAC has produced to date may now be seen on Wikipedia which encompasses:

The nature of the State National and its importance to State Sovereignty.

You may read the article at:

• http://www.pacinlaw.us/wiki

UPDATE NOTE: Article was deleted on November 18, 2010 with no valid explanation. One Arthur Rubin
was the one to initiate the deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin

Also, this activity may be tied to the Subversive Operations of the ADL

State National on Wikipedia, State National Wiki.

Awesome. I kinda wanted to see the L/N §10 quoted in it's entirety. You did indicate that the Union is intended to be a federal republic under the L/N, but didn't reference §10 as you did in a footnote.

I agree with Geoff, Awesome. I feel that it is, as possible a way to simplify, such a complex, deceptive, take-over our United States. I really like how it explains the reason, why, we have to formally declare ourselves out of their de facto government. I also, really like how it explains the citizenship issue, in how they used word trickery in the set-up of the use of term "citizen of the United States" as it explains on the the term used in our organic Constitution and the deceptive use of this same term in the 14th Amendment. I feel this is confusing to most people. For what I didn't know before was, how the term, was meant in it's original form. I had always thought that a, citizen was a citizen. Boy, was I wrong. I had no idea, and I feel most people don't either.

This is a great way to get it out to a multitude of people all at once.  And the other thing, that I really, really like is the writings of the slavery issues, very important and helpful. We have been so misinformed, it is awful. This is definitely great. I think PAC is on to something in having this article posted on such a widely reached audiences, and what is even better, Wiki is world wide, this could help people in other nations whose governments may be de facto ones, also. The sad part is most people don't even know that they/we are in a fake/illegal govermental control. We are learning now, thanks to PAC and all of its members. Raising awareness on this most criminal of acts, to everyone is of the utmost importance. It explains, all the hows and whys, of why it is wrong and how it is continued to be allowed to go on. Those in the know do nothing to help us correct it, either. For they will not be forgotten about either, once, we are able to reclaim our original seats of offices, in our de jure form of governments.

I love the wiki article 

Were you aware of the following notice on the wikipedia page:

"It is proposed this article be deleted because of the following concern...
Fringe interpretation of obsolete references with a few Easter eggs thrown in"

You guys have until November 24th to object (at least that's my reading of the notice)

This is proof that Wiki is controlled via the mass brainwashing consortium. They will delete any subject/topic that conflicts with the "mainstream" view of the entrenched body politic of Communisum now running rampant within the haunted halls of the chattle's "representatives" that only "represent" large, multinational corporations.  Charlie McGrath has a recent utube video noting such representation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwx-Jp9u1a8

Most of his videos hit hard and to the point.

The discussion regarding deletion is highly biased and influenced by corporate "laywerisms" to hide and confuse.

It was a good idea, well written and informative, yet "those in control" will not allow this to be distributed to the masses.

Yes, we know about the assault on the Article. We are keeping record of all of it.

You may want to visit the Marxist monkey gang-bang (by mostly attorneys) here before it gets deleted:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National

Most of them are attorneys, with most of them being on Quatloos. They are giving no law to back-up in attempting to get the post deleted, except some very weak positions that are, and were, easily overcome.

Here is the thread where they actually admit that it will be deleted and if there was something else close to the term they would over-write the article ( the rest is just off-point bashing by that dullard Tax Attorney Evans http://www.notmygovernment.us/forum/NMG.pl?num=1285779668/4#4 ):

• http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6517&hilit=bork

Another note on the Quattards, they started another thread on me that has almost as many hits as other big hit threads on the forum; also they have a 100 post thread limit, but I am such a threat to them and their delusion that they let it go way over that. They are evil, as you can tell by their posts. 

WIZARD is right about these conspirators. They do not want the information out.

Oh, for what it is worth, a nice post on Jay Adkisson (owner of Quatloos) on Rip-Off Report .com:

• http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-services/jay-adkisson-chris-r/jay-ad...

There are other reports on there also.

p.s. The Quattards have been on the Forum, here. I suspect the current 2 negative votes are executed by them. They are children, and I would not put it past them. Their monopoly is being threatened.

The below statement was taken from the community deletion page on Wikipedia.
It is one of the few positive statements that was made in appeal.

DO NOT DELETE. I have found this quite an interesting page/'discussion'. I lived in the States for 7 years and without meaning to, became involved in researching law while living there. Mostly because I was fighting a few court battles as a pro se defendant. I also studied, while in Los Angeles, about people and their behaviours. The two combinations, studying people and their behaviours and law, came together quite neatly when defending myself in court. Because of those experiences I became involved in researching law outside 'normal' channels. I have found that without a doubt, the legal system in America is beyond corrupt. It is immoral and evil and is nothing to do with justice. So the comments about this subject, whether or not this reference to State National should be deleted I find quite interesting. Namely because the ones requesting deletion hardly address the actual article. They attack the individual. Anyone reading the various comments can see this quite clearly. This happens when the FACTS of something cannot be disputed, or have more truth than not. So the classic alternative is done: attack the one doing the writing and make slurs about that person. And this is done when a group of individuals discover that their ivory tower is about to be demolished. I am talking about the regular folks finding out what the legal system is really all about. I myself have read the Law Of Nations and have created a website on it ( http://www.matrixfiles.com/lon.html ). Having read this and also Intervention in International Law by Ellery C Stowell (http://matrixfiles.com/int.html) I can say that these two works are more vital now in how to deal with all the fraud and corruption in the US system, as well as in the EU, than at any time in history. ALL nations of the world abide by the principles as laid out in the works referenced above. I have also come across hidden data (hidden from view but in plain sight, which is another classic tactic of war and deception) that actually makes this article quite valid. The problem with those who do not want this article to be deleted is that they do not write anything about their views like I am doing. While those that have evil intentions get their way PRECISELY because they do just that (act as a group). So while it may seem that a majority want this article to be deleted, the tone of their comments tells me that they have ulterior motives for doing so.
[[User:Judge Dredd¦judge_dredd@operamail.com]

.
All others comments were attorneys and people with obvious socialist based ideals (reading some of their user information), which would serve to say that Wikipedia is nothing but a controlled environment for the establishment and is not a place for facts. No one in the delete discussion gave any assistance in helping to make changes of what particular "statements" or "material" they thought may violate Wiki rules. See the gang attack here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National

I would like to add that most of these attorneys say the article is "gibberish", but look at the people who have voted say that it has helped them. The truth is, that evil cannot let the truth be known.

The only Wikier that seemed to be impartial (in regard to the subject matter) was this lady:

Delete. This article is a synthetic essay - that is, it takes information from a number of sources, and puts it together in a manner to advance a thesis that is not in any of those sources. Being an essay is not a bad thing in itself, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. There are other venues for the publication of essays; Wikipedia is not such a venue. LadyofShalott

Sorry to say, but there are many other such "essay" entries on Wikipedia.

The fact remains, there was no attempt by anyone to assist to "repair" the article to let it exist in the apparently polluted Wikipedia environment. Most complaints were orchestrated and overtly hostile. Moreover, as one can see be the latter comments, it was turning into more of a true Wiki deletion debate as to rules instead of people attacking the subject matter. It had no chance of survival with the attacks in regard to proper Wiki protocols.

Please discuss.

I was on the same page and wondered what this judge was really saying.

QUOTE Ngc6205 : Justice Joseph Story agreed with that interpretation when he wrote, 
Every citizen of a state is
ipso facto
 a citizen of the United States. 

IPSO JURE. By the act of the law itself, or by mere operation of law.

IPSO FACTO. By the fact itself. 2.  For example, if a married man, during the life of his wife, of which he had knowledge, should marry another woman, the latter marriage would be void ipso facto; that is, on that fact being proved, the second marriage would be declared void ab initio.

Now why would that judge use the IPSO FACTO instead of IPSO JURE?

Blacks law 1st

I believe this endeavor IS a good one even though I've admonished the venue as Wiki is known to me and many other "truth seekers" to be a biased and refutable venue so it may be counterproductive to even try going there.

Just my insight.

Go here to check out the book "You Are Not A Gadget", by Jaron Lanier.

• http://www.jaronlanier.com/gadgetwebresources.html

I know what he appears to be with his dreadlocks and all, but his insight on the subject of the internet, as seen from the mind one of the internet's revolutionary thinkers, is useful in the consideration of using the internet as a venue for a movement and the care needed to be taken in that regard. He admonishes Wiki in particular in his profound and insightful examination of contemporary computer and internet technology.

Great article but wrong venue, Wiki is bad news!

20-Mule-Team Delete: The next Wikipedia essay on fallacious arguments I write will likely be called WP:ITSTRUEBECAUSEISAYITIS. Pacgroups and his sock/meatpuppets have obviously mistaken Wikipedia for a discussion forum on constitutional law. For someone so interested in legal arguments, I'm surprised that he hasn't grasped that deletion discussions can only center on whether the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't, as amply (and exhaustively) argued above. As far as Pacgroups' repeated whingings about "miscarriages of justice" and such like, again, someone so interested in legal arguments should readily grasp that Wikipedia is a private website and can adopt (and implement) such rules for inclusion as it sees fit. RGTraynor  16:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't Island material I don't know what is.

It seem this bunch doesn't know that they are talking to a state national. And has went through the process to become one and that this de facto government let him return to his rightful government. This just shows their lack of knowing the law due to their actions on Wiki.

Comment. While QahalPastor arguments may have merit in that all research starts as original research, the rules clearly prohibit it here. No outside sources that have done comparable research have been noted, no links to verifiable sources about the conclusion drawn have been offered and, as was pointed out by Pacgroups, the majority of the opinions rendered in this debate have been by attorneys, who would know if there was a case for the findings. No additions have been made to rectify this and, as was pointed out by NawlinWiki it doesnt matter if we agree or disagree, the rules are clear and nothing you have said or can say will change them. Now I suggest that this discussion be considered over and allow the moderators and admins do what they feel is right. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. While QahalPastor arguments may have merit in that all research starts as original research, the rules clearly prohibit it here. No outside sources that have done comparable research have been noted, no links to verifiable sources about the conclusion drawn have been offered and, as was pointed out by Pacgroups,
the majority of the opinions rendered in this debate have been by attorneys, who would know if there was a case for the findings.
No additions have been made to rectify this and, as was pointed out by NawlinWiki it doesnt matter if we agree or disagree, the rules are clear and nothing you have said or can say will change them. Now I suggest that this discussion be considered over and allow the moderators and admins do what they feel is right. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why have none of these attorneys tried to do any findings on this. Because they would most likely loss their INCOME.
That is a hush hush thing that they don't want people to know.

Jerry, as to the law in debate in the delete page, the comments that were made there are easy to tear apart.
The main issue was, the subject matter was a threat and they needed it gone fast. There was no chance of fairness. Arthur Rubin, who touts that Internet Censorship is a bad thing, started the ball rolling. Again, the rule of: Do not listen to what they say, watch what they do. Evil people show their true colors under this rule.

As far as your other notations/statements about attorneys, such fits in with what Seeker posted: That Wikipedia is a controlled environment which feeds the status quo (paraphrasing).

The other "programmed" ones are closed minded and make for a great suppressing team for facts and truth.

Addressing the ipso facto citizen of the United States comment, as usual, judges do not really state the whole truth in clarifying what they say. Anyone can look at the Constitution and see that language (term) is used, but the context is what is important. Poor minded attorneys, who practice deception through sophistry (witting, and unwitting, hence "poor" minded attorneys), use such methods to make fallacious arguments. I assert that Citizen of the United States was used in the Constitution on purpose to lay the foundation for such, excuse my frankness, bullshit.

Below are the fitting definitions from Island Makers Project that fit the attorney matter:

• Sophistry. Sophism, in its modern definition from Plato, is noted as a specious argument used by a person or sophist in order to deceive someone. This is a technique that is popular with lawyers and/or attorneys to gain control over their adversaries in litigation proceedings. See Maintainers
  
  
• Maintainers. Individuals and organizations of numerous kinds that use various methods to maintain control of America through the 14th Amendment political and legal system. Such entities are generally beneficiaries of what the system produces, hence have a pecuniary (profit) interest as motivation. See Gate Keeper, and Lapdog
  
  
• Gate Keeper. This is a person or organization that is put in place to keep people pacified with a certain level of information. Such is of purpose to guard the whole truth of what the real problem may be. See Maintainers
  
  
• Lapdog. As a general rule, a person who is under the control of another due to the lack of critical thought. Such persons may be subsidized in some fashion which may include monetary gain or immunity. See Maintainers
  
  
• Gibberish. A word used by attorneys who fail to have valid legal retort for someone's position. It is noted that at times the word "nonsense" is used it its place. The use of these words is generally a sign of him being jealous or incompetent. Sometimes users of these words appears to believe that form is over substance which violates the substantive rights of which they use it on. See Facts Denier
  
  
• Facts Denier. Generally a practice used by maintainers, or lawyers/attorneys. The thought process of these persons is grounded in the 14th Amendment not changing anything in American law; however, such persons may use conceptual tools such as the "Living Constitution" in assisting to back-up their delusion so that the manipulation of the law can be maintained under the political system of the 14th Amendment. See Sophistry

More on the attorney problem here under Island Makers Project database, see American Bar Association. And, do not forget they paid a lot to go to school... So they know they are right (in the Twilight Zone).

Type in "Wikipedia Sucks" in the search engine and you will be surprised what you get...

This is an interesting article found under "Wikipedia Sucks" Google search...

• http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml

If that can or did happen, who could trust Wikipedia? From what happened with the State National article in regard to fairness, it does appear that a "mob" can "dictate" the content of the source. A loving community that is interested in educating people would have assisted in fixing the subject matter, if in fact it is in violation of protocols.

More on the deletions of Wikipedia...

Deletionpedia is an archive of about 62,852 pages which have been deleted from the English-language Wikipedia. It is not a wiki: you cannot edit the pages uploaded here, an automated bot uploads pages deleted from Wikipedia.

• http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com

They are so sure not to let the people know the true path to freedom. 

Bridging with other sites may be an issue.