fend himself and in the end the government threw him in prison for six or seven years. The disturbing thing about this case is that the government never charged him with a crime.

For the longest time, Mr. Hinkson said he couldn't figure out why the judge would say such a crazy thing like that until he learned about the motion of alimni. A motion of alimni is an instrument that the government uses to bar, cancel or eliminate common law from being heard in a court case. Evidently, few people have ever heard of this thing although if they have, they don't understand what it's all about.

Anyway, when the man appealed his case the attorneys for the government and the IRS attached a copy of a motion of alimni to his appeal. Due to the man's ignorance of what had been done, he never objected to it, which meant that he couldn't challenge it on appeal. Well, all Constitutional arguments are based upon common law. That means once the government had their motion of alimni in place, the man on trial couldn't mention Jesus, God or the Constitution.

Mr. Hinkson also told us about another example of this that happened recently, which involved a man named Gary Dumont. Mr. Hinkson said the government tried him in Idaho, but he is currently serving prison time in Alabama. This Dumont fellow is in prison despite the fact that the government never charged him with a crime. The government filed their motions of alimni and since nobody knew what it was all about, there was no objection to it. Mr. Hinkson said it surprised him to learn that the government never stamped, filed or officially served a motion of alimni against these people. So, here these guys are sitting in jail without being charged with a crime; they've just been made a political prisoner.

According to Mr. Hinkson, the government does this shady tactic all the time to strip you of your rights and means to defend yourself. Here's a general idea of what happens. You're prosecuted by the government and end up getting an adverse decision against you. You then file your appeal, writ of habaus corpus or whatever it is that you have to do. The government staples a nonfiled motion of alimni to your appeal and sends it up to the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court looks at your case they see that you never objected to the government's motion. Therefore, since you never objected to it they deny reviewing your case. Then you sit in jail as a political prisoner for the next nine years. Thus, when they secretly attach that motion to your appeal, they in effect make it so that you never have a chance for appeal. That's how they are locking people into prison so they will never have a chance to get out. The judge doesn't care what happens to you because if it never comes up on appeal officially, then he'll never be in trouble; he'll never lose his job and he'll never be sanctioned by anyone.

So, how do you object to something that the government never served upon you? Mr. Hinkson came up with the idea of filing a motion of alimni against the government to cancel statute law the day they charge you. You base it upon the 7th Amendment to the federal Constitution, which guarantees you the right to a common law trial. If they move forward in the trial without honoring the 7th Amendment, then you can file a civil rights lawsuit against the judge personally. In doing that, now you will have set the record with your own motion of alimni so the government can't railroad you anymore. As far as Mr. Hinkson knows, ARL attorney, Milton Baxley, is the first one to ever try bringing a civil rights lawsuit against a judge as described above. Mr. Hinkson also has several other attorneys that work with Eddie who are in the middle of using a motion of alimni in such a fashion. It will be interesting to hear about what happens as a result of these actions.

David Hinkson Challenges U.S. Prosecutor's Authority

David Hinkson went on to talk about a personal issue of his where the government has been trying to bring legal action against him for awhile now. He didn't specify the underlying reasons behind their actions, although he talked about his most recent dealings with someone seeking to prosecute him. Mr. Hinkson served Nancy Cook, the U.S. Prosecutor in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, with a letter demanding to see a copy of her delegation of authority order. He also asked pursuant to the nature and the cause of the case that she provide him with a copy of an information affidavit showing that he had committed a crime. Mr. Hinkson said they have already held ten "Star Chamber" grand jury summonses against him, which were the same type of summonses held against Al Capone; they still don't have a crime.

Along with his letter, he sent 1000 Supreme Court rulings that say she is supposed to have a delegation of authority order. Mr. Hinkson said if she doesn't have one, then that means she is not an officer of the United States. If she is not an officer of the United States, then that means she is impersonating a U.S. Officer, which is illegal. The first two paragraphs of Mr. Hinkson's letter asked for her delegation of authority and the next thirteen pages listed all the Supreme Court rulings. The last two paragraphs notified her that if she failed to respond within fifteen days, then he would assume that she is impersonating a U.S. Agent. If that's the case, then she is conducting "star chamber" grand jury tribunals in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Question #1: Mr. Hinkson, where are you looking to get that delegation of authority from if there is no person to issue it?

Answer #1: They can't have it. That's their problem; I didn't create this phoney house of cards for them. If they were to issue a delegation of authority order, it would violate the Tenth Amendment because the Constitution never authorized the creation of enforcement officers. The government is banned by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments from doing it. That's why Roosevelt's wife created all those federal agencies years ago. I'm sure that if they could have legally created the Food and Drug Administration and all the other alphabet soup agencies they would have, but they didn't.

Question #2: When challenging someone's delegation of authority where might that be applicable?

Answer #2: It covers state agents and judges as well. A judge has no delegation of authority either, because he is not an Article III judge, therefore he will not have one. If you ask for it and he fails to provide it, then you can file a lawsuit against that judge immediately for impersonating a judge.

Question #3: Do you have to have an issue in front of a judge in order to demand his or her delegation of authority order?

Answer #3: It's found under the guarantee of the right to know the nature and cause of a case, which is called a bill of particulars.

Question #4: That's understood, but let's say that I just wanted to challenge all the judges in the State of Tennessee?

Answer #4: Oh, you could send them letters asking to see copies of their delegation of authority orders. I can e-mail a copy of that letter I sent that contains all of those Supreme Court rulings that I sent to that U.S. prosecutor. Send a request to dhinkson@camasnet.com and I will e-mail you back a copy of the Nancy Cook letter.

That letter can be used with any officer or agent of any government - state or federal; none of them have it. Even FBI agents are not agents of the United States government because they do not have a delegation of authority order. Neither do any of the officers or agents of the Department of Interior, U.S. Departement of Labor, IRS, ATF, etc. or state agents.

There is a reason why they don't have it; it's because they are not the government. The United States Constitution is not the same thing as the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution for the United States of America authorized the creation of one government, which was called the District of Columbia, Inc. It did not authorize the creation of two governments. Therefore, U.S., Inc. was never created pursuant to any legal and binding authority under the Constitution for the United States of America. It's a phony corporation that in my opinion, belongs to the Queen of England.

State agents do not have delegation of authority orders either. This is because the State of Idaho, for instance, is a subcorporation of the United States and subcorporations have no more power that the parent corporation. U.S., Inc. is the parent corporation and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution did it authorize the creation of enforcement officers. That's why Mrs. Roosevelt (the wife of former president Theodore Roosevelt) created the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as a few other organizations. None of them have an agency; it's all lies, B.S. and a house of cards, nothing more. By the way the the president of the United States is not really the president either; he is an imposter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------