One thing that nobody likes to talk about, is that whether you love it or hate it, our Constitution, basically failed. It did not constrain our government, it did not preserve States' Rights, and it did not protect Our Rights. It didn't keep us from unwise foreign entanglements, undeclared wars, unsound monetary policy, deficit spending, socialist welfare and entitlement "vote buying" schemes, or prevent the growth of a behemoth blob of federal agencies, and their millions of functionary employees. ALL OF OUR RIGHTS have been infringed, or eliminated altogether. The "dream" that was America, died on the vine.
The bureaucracies were never voted for. 439 of them exist outside the purview of the Constitution. And WE the PEOPLE never put any of these clowns in power. They are selected for us so we can have the illusion of choice. Trump is the exception…APPARENTLY.
And yet it could be the very thing resuscitated and focused on and stood with. that could change everything. Why not? We do have a nice long and concise list of unconstitutionality that is well documented to work with. That actually important.
I have met people who's family has fought in every American war. And now they admit total defeat too. They all have their government jobs now and openly go right along with the socialism. And try to tell me that the sooner I get on board the better off I will be.
I'm coming from the other side. Raised somewhat a welfare recipient in California.
Now that I am no longer confused about what the intent of this country is, still is, and that it was meant to be our protection from all of it, I choose to hallucinate and conjure that reality right now that was fought and died for, regardless of any holographic liberty transformed author types, nationalistic vs federalist fight losses and all of the past and present multitude of agendas to kill this country that has been enmeshed in this profound individually freedom based established country from day one and consequently is obviously being used by every tom, dick and harry as well as other countries to just exploit it and make me go back into a collectivist mentality. No thanks! That's where I come from. It really sucks. Free lunch card, no real personal power, no real life.
As guilty as this country has been to its, dare I say the word, citizens, and they are guilty, not me, not necessarily the framers, I am moving forward anyway. They may imprison me or kill me or whatever they want to do to me and there may not be much I can do to stop these un-American types. But they can't have me and they won't get my vote.
As far as the 2nd amendment goes, to strictly enforce it would possibly mean ripping all gun control laws out by the roots. There is a reason why these Parasitic Pedophile Rulers don't want anyone to defend themselves, they know they would be hunted to extinction. They know they deserve it!
They operate as though they have total ownership over all of us. Proof of this can be found in the Language itself:
As for it's origin, it is clear that anything that has to do with REG in particular directly refers to royalty.
So REGISTER-ing ‘anything,’ gets put in a book of record and is given back to the king (royalty).
Regis = to rule over + Ster = divine feminine (middle english, from old english - estre female agent)So by this - the CROWN/GOVERNMENT owns everything Registered. When you Register something, the divine feminine energy is ruled over or usurped.
Reg = move in a straight line, thus to rule + gist/gistry = a temporary conveyance of title to the crown.The king came along and demanded the re gister all of their land and possessions to him for protection. This is founded in the Magna Carta and feudalism.
This goes for everything - Your name, your car, your house, your licenses, even your kids or yourself as a 14th amendment citizen. If it's on the registry, the conveyance of title goes to the king.
If they have the design that they own you, by owning your name sake through the Birth Certificate and Nana Consent when you are born, just how much deciding power does "Voting" really have? Also how much firepower do you think they would ever "Allow" for the Tax Farm Animals?
People everywhere have had enough --- It's time to seize our Lawful Standing as Sui Juris; as Sovereign Individuals.
The Declaration of Independence is really the more important document, the Constitution was always set up for the control they now wield, mostly because of our years of complacency.
The constitution hasn't failed....you just aren't participating in it. You are participating in an unconstitutional amendment and you consent to this verification this daily....are you a "US citizen"
The 14th Amendment created the very first "us citizen" prior to this you were a citizen of your state ...ie...a Texan, Virginian, etc... now you are "residing" in your state and not actually a part of the State...Basically a foreigner!!! You participate in interstate commerce just by your mere presence, and you buy guns from who ? Exactly?? A "federal firearms dealer" with a license???
Maybe we need to have an English class before we move on to theories about "the constitution"??
There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. (1909)
"State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, (1908)
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress." U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226 (1993)
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; (1900)
"that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451; (1900)
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 (1968)
"The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. . . .he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
"Previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. . . . The several states [did not] surrender the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Thus, each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons . . . ." Boyd, 143 U.S. at 159 (1892)
"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court. (1928)
"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., (1966), 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases (1873) and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 (1875)
"The phrase "privileges and immunities" was used in Article 4 & 2 in the Constitution, which decrees that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States." As has been said, prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there had been no constitutional definition of citizenship of the United States, or the rights, privileges and secured thereby or springing therefrom. At one time it was thought that this section recognized a group which, according to the jurisprudence of the day, we classed as "natural rights;" and the purpose of the section was to create rights of citizens of the United States by guaranteeing the citizens of every state the recognition of this group of rights by every other state." Hague V. Committee for Industrial Organization. 307 U.S.496 (1939)
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. . . . Within the scope of [the federal government’s] powers, as enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the States; but beyond, it has no existence.” United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 549-50
And if you ever need to challenge this nonsense... the irrefutable evidence is available!!
This is the congressional record ....hard to argue against that!
The only catch is, states have adopted the 14th Amendment putting it in their respective state constitutions. So doing a passport process or other approaches to be recognized as a state citizen only, do any good whatsoever? If so, love to know exactly how thanks.
I have "petitioned" our State govt multiple times... we even pass laws that pertain only to "citizens of the state" (recently Oklahoma SB631) the text clearly states "citizen of this state" so I asked to be formally recognized as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma and no longer a mere resident... the responses would have been hilarious if it was a laughing matter.(most of them just ignorant) One representative wrote back stating that "Oklahoma does not have a procedural mechanism to recognize citizenship"
This has been a "pet project" of mine for 12-15yrs. I always ask the new representatives if they can explain the difference.
The problem is that you don't know your legal status... you are a citizen of the federal government..... you no longer participate in those first 8 amendments ! This has been ruled on countless times. It isn't the government's fault, it yours!!
I am going to point this out as plainly as possible ..
Per article 2 of the Oklahoma constitution you can clearly see that there are "citizens of this State" then you can see according to the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment created a new type of "citizen", a citizen of the federal government, aka "Resident" that does not participate in the Rights that are enjoyed under "State citizenship" and that there absolutely, is a definite distinction between the two.also take note as to which class the licensing is built around... this is not a matter of semantics!
So you need to ask yourself, does being a citizen of the federal government actually benefit you, or are you settling for a second class citizenship just because you didn't know there was a difference??
These quotes and court decisions should look familiar... however Oklahoma does not have any procedural mechanism to recognize citizenship to the state, I can point to numerous recent pieces of legislation pertaining specifically to "citizens of this State" not "Residents of this State" this is a major problem. Like you are playing baseball and trying to use the rulebook for football, the terms, goals and penalties will be wrong.
The only thing required to own land in Oklahoma is to be "a bona-fide resident"
We have Mexican and Chinese nationals that are "Residents" of Oklahoma ....but what exactly does your own personal hunting license say on it??? "Resident" ??
Attached are a few examples.
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE FIRST TIME a citizenship of the United States..."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala.
"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, 1908
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress." U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
One thing that nobody likes to talk about, is that whether you love it or hate it, our Constitution, basically failed. It did not constrain our government, it did not preserve States' Rights, and it did not protect Our Rights. It didn't keep us from unwise foreign entanglements, undeclared wars, unsound monetary policy, deficit spending, socialist welfare and entitlement "vote buying" schemes, or prevent the growth of a behemoth blob of federal agencies, and their millions of functionary employees. ALL OF OUR RIGHTS have been infringed, or eliminated altogether. The "dream" that was America, died on the vine.
It's a harsh truth, but here we are...
Oh, and the fact of the matter is, “our” Constitution was replaced with COMMUNISM starting back around the “civil” war. https://www.courageouslion.us/p/communism-american-style
You are correct. But, it’s still the best one around. All about the people you put in power.
The bureaucracies were never voted for. 439 of them exist outside the purview of the Constitution. And WE the PEOPLE never put any of these clowns in power. They are selected for us so we can have the illusion of choice. Trump is the exception…APPARENTLY.
And maybe Reagan.
And yet it could be the very thing resuscitated and focused on and stood with. that could change everything. Why not? We do have a nice long and concise list of unconstitutionality that is well documented to work with. That actually important.
I have met people who's family has fought in every American war. And now they admit total defeat too. They all have their government jobs now and openly go right along with the socialism. And try to tell me that the sooner I get on board the better off I will be.
I'm coming from the other side. Raised somewhat a welfare recipient in California.
Now that I am no longer confused about what the intent of this country is, still is, and that it was meant to be our protection from all of it, I choose to hallucinate and conjure that reality right now that was fought and died for, regardless of any holographic liberty transformed author types, nationalistic vs federalist fight losses and all of the past and present multitude of agendas to kill this country that has been enmeshed in this profound individually freedom based established country from day one and consequently is obviously being used by every tom, dick and harry as well as other countries to just exploit it and make me go back into a collectivist mentality. No thanks! That's where I come from. It really sucks. Free lunch card, no real personal power, no real life.
As guilty as this country has been to its, dare I say the word, citizens, and they are guilty, not me, not necessarily the framers, I am moving forward anyway. They may imprison me or kill me or whatever they want to do to me and there may not be much I can do to stop these un-American types. But they can't have me and they won't get my vote.
As far as the 2nd amendment goes, to strictly enforce it would possibly mean ripping all gun control laws out by the roots. There is a reason why these Parasitic Pedophile Rulers don't want anyone to defend themselves, they know they would be hunted to extinction. They know they deserve it!
They operate as though they have total ownership over all of us. Proof of this can be found in the Language itself:
Just check out the word; Registration:
I discovered a write-up on this that is so serious that it really does deserve an article dedicated to it. This is the source: https://steemit.com/etymology/@knownassam/register-what-does-it-mean
Excerpt from above link on Registration:
As for it's origin, it is clear that anything that has to do with REG in particular directly refers to royalty.
So REGISTER-ing ‘anything,’ gets put in a book of record and is given back to the king (royalty).
Regis = to rule over + Ster = divine feminine (middle english, from old english - estre female agent)So by this - the CROWN/GOVERNMENT owns everything Registered. When you Register something, the divine feminine energy is ruled over or usurped.
Reg = move in a straight line, thus to rule + gist/gistry = a temporary conveyance of title to the crown.The king came along and demanded the re gister all of their land and possessions to him for protection. This is founded in the Magna Carta and feudalism.
This goes for everything - Your name, your car, your house, your licenses, even your kids or yourself as a 14th amendment citizen. If it's on the registry, the conveyance of title goes to the king.
If they have the design that they own you, by owning your name sake through the Birth Certificate and Nana Consent when you are born, just how much deciding power does "Voting" really have? Also how much firepower do you think they would ever "Allow" for the Tax Farm Animals?
People everywhere have had enough --- It's time to seize our Lawful Standing as Sui Juris; as Sovereign Individuals.
The Declaration of Independence is really the more important document, the Constitution was always set up for the control they now wield, mostly because of our years of complacency.
Thanks to you: https://substack.com/home/post/p-151192588
Effing love it.
When you make guns illegal or difficult to get. Only POS criminals will have unlimited supply of guns, and ammunition
And those that work for the "government". Or am I repeating what you just said...POS CRIMINALS.
The constitution hasn't failed....you just aren't participating in it. You are participating in an unconstitutional amendment and you consent to this verification this daily....are you a "US citizen"
The 14th Amendment created the very first "us citizen" prior to this you were a citizen of your state ...ie...a Texan, Virginian, etc... now you are "residing" in your state and not actually a part of the State...Basically a foreigner!!! You participate in interstate commerce just by your mere presence, and you buy guns from who ? Exactly?? A "federal firearms dealer" with a license???
Maybe we need to have an English class before we move on to theories about "the constitution"??
There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. (1909)
"State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, (1908)
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress." U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226 (1993)
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; (1900)
"that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451; (1900)
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 (1968)
"The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. . . .he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
"Previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. . . . The several states [did not] surrender the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Thus, each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons . . . ." Boyd, 143 U.S. at 159 (1892)
"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court. (1928)
"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., (1966), 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases (1873) and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 (1875)
"The phrase "privileges and immunities" was used in Article 4 & 2 in the Constitution, which decrees that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States." As has been said, prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there had been no constitutional definition of citizenship of the United States, or the rights, privileges and secured thereby or springing therefrom. At one time it was thought that this section recognized a group which, according to the jurisprudence of the day, we classed as "natural rights;" and the purpose of the section was to create rights of citizens of the United States by guaranteeing the citizens of every state the recognition of this group of rights by every other state." Hague V. Committee for Industrial Organization. 307 U.S.496 (1939)
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. . . . Within the scope of [the federal government’s] powers, as enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the States; but beyond, it has no existence.” United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 549-50
And if you ever need to challenge this nonsense... the irrefutable evidence is available!!
This is the congressional record ....hard to argue against that!
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:7f9f7e2a-a185-44a7-8965-7f62a94cac58
The only catch is, states have adopted the 14th Amendment putting it in their respective state constitutions. So doing a passport process or other approaches to be recognized as a state citizen only, do any good whatsoever? If so, love to know exactly how thanks.
Except they are in the wrong.
The serious end of it is that the representatives and judges literally are guilty of perjury!
They took an oath.... and right there the 14th was never ratified so how can they use it?
I have "petitioned" our State govt multiple times... we even pass laws that pertain only to "citizens of the state" (recently Oklahoma SB631) the text clearly states "citizen of this state" so I asked to be formally recognized as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma and no longer a mere resident... the responses would have been hilarious if it was a laughing matter.(most of them just ignorant) One representative wrote back stating that "Oklahoma does not have a procedural mechanism to recognize citizenship"
This has been a "pet project" of mine for 12-15yrs. I always ask the new representatives if they can explain the difference.
Very interesting. And I can tell you are my hero. Very cool.
Unfortunately like all good groups they implode from infighting, sometimes I believe "by design" however NC had it figured out.
This is what it looks like when it goes to court.
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A45b48646-5630-47f4-9a75-3d89d8eb332d
The problem is that you don't know your legal status... you are a citizen of the federal government..... you no longer participate in those first 8 amendments ! This has been ruled on countless times. It isn't the government's fault, it yours!!
I am going to point this out as plainly as possible ..
Per article 2 of the Oklahoma constitution you can clearly see that there are "citizens of this State" then you can see according to the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment created a new type of "citizen", a citizen of the federal government, aka "Resident" that does not participate in the Rights that are enjoyed under "State citizenship" and that there absolutely, is a definite distinction between the two.also take note as to which class the licensing is built around... this is not a matter of semantics!
So you need to ask yourself, does being a citizen of the federal government actually benefit you, or are you settling for a second class citizenship just because you didn't know there was a difference??
These quotes and court decisions should look familiar... however Oklahoma does not have any procedural mechanism to recognize citizenship to the state, I can point to numerous recent pieces of legislation pertaining specifically to "citizens of this State" not "Residents of this State" this is a major problem. Like you are playing baseball and trying to use the rulebook for football, the terms, goals and penalties will be wrong.
The only thing required to own land in Oklahoma is to be "a bona-fide resident"
We have Mexican and Chinese nationals that are "Residents" of Oklahoma ....but what exactly does your own personal hunting license say on it??? "Resident" ??
Attached are a few examples.
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE FIRST TIME a citizenship of the United States..."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala.
"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, 1908
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress." U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:ea871365-3ab9-3259-ac1a-1cddb65a8ae0