by Anna von Reitz<\/p>\n
Finally, Thank God and Thanks to Many People, a Remedy That Cannot Be Stopped or Side-Stepped or Ignored \u00a0—\u00a0Judge Anna<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
First, please be patient with yourself as you read through these facts. It took years of hard labor by dozens of good people to ferret out each little piece of this. It\u2019s going to take you at least an hour or two to take it in and follow the logic to its inexorable conclusion.
\nWhen you get to the end, you will find a template that lays out the very simple one-page Fraud Killer. This does not mean that you should abandon your efforts to document your own identity and proper standing and that of your relatives—but you now have in your hands a very powerful means to break the shackles of the Great Fraud.<\/p>\n______________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Definition(s) of \u201cUnited States\u201d and \u201cUNITED STATES\u201d and \u201cUnited States of America\u201d and \u201cUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\u201d…..<\/strong>
\n______________________________________________________________<\/p>\nNote the date and by what entity— an \u201cacting\u201d Congress during the Civil War—this was done:
\n<\/strong>
\n1864<\/strong>— the \u201cacting Congress\u201d passed an Act changing the meaning of “state, States and United States” to mean “the territories and District of Columbia”. (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864.<\/p>\n[\u201cUS Territories\u201d—- portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states. Includes all federal installations\u2014military bases, docks, courthouses, etc.]<\/p>\n
This was never changed, amended or appealed, so, all references to \u201cstate, States, and United States\u201d in Federal Code that are not otherwise specifically defined, must be construed as \u201cthe territories and District of Columbia\u201d.<\/p>\n
You must also make a distinction between the meaning of the words used prior to and then after the passage of this 1864 corporate law.<\/p>\n
Prior to this, \u201cstate, States, and United States\u201d meant what we commonly still believe them to mean— after 1864 in \u201cFederal Code\u201d\u2014they generally meant something entirely different and opposed to the popular meaning.<\/p>\n
Three Crucial Definitions, Plus a Fourth in Commerce:<\/p>\n
\u201c The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. (1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (that is, the territories and District of Columbia) extends, or (3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.\u201d — Hooven and Allison Company v. Evatt, 324 US 652 (1945) (This is also the verbatim definition of \u201cUnited States\u201d given in Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.)<\/strong><\/p>\n
Additionally…. we have definition (4) thanks to: The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62<\/span>, page 419, Congress chartered a Federal Company entitled “United States,” a\/k\/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment [which the record indicates was never ratified— see Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484.]<\/strong><\/p>\n
Please note:<\/strong> that The Act of 1871 —\u201cAn Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,\u201d ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871<\/span> — was repealed in 1874 and then passed piecemeal via these actions—- \u201cAn Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,\u201d ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873\u2013\u201974 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)) .<\/p>\n
When looking at the intent of all this, given that the actual District of Columbia was set up in 1790 and fully chartered by 1801, the aim of the Act of 1871 is, as it must be, merely to set up \u201cU.S. Corp\u201d—<\/p>\n
\u201cThat all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the \u201cDistrict of Columbia\u201d, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes \u2026 and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.\u201d \u2013 Act of 1871 verbiage—<\/em><\/p>\n
So the Act of 1871 was to create a private corporation owned by the actual government of the District of Columbia— thus the birth of the infamous District of Columbia Municipal Corporation:<\/strong><\/p>\n
The only \u201cgovernment\u201d created by the Act of 1871 was that of any private corporation which determines its own administrative rules and structures…….that is, the US Corp dba \u201cUNITED STATES\u201d is not merely the name of an incorporated municipality (District of Columbia)— it is the name of a private corporation (District of Columbia Municipal Corporation) that was created by the \u201cacting Congress\u201d via the Act of 1877 and as amended ever since.<\/p>\n
Few Americans realize that there are all these definitions for the “United States.” Most have been misled to believe that the term “United States” has a single meaning and is a generic term referring to the country as a whole–However, in Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is also the name of a corporation, as just demonstrated from the public records.<\/strong>
\n_____________________________________________________
\nDoes the UNITED STATES \u2013 the private corporation operating the government of \u201cthe Territories and District of Columbia\u201d have \u201ccitizens\u201d?
\n1873: U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States (\u201dUnited States\u201d meaning \u201cterritories and District of Columbia\u201d) is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” (That is a \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d is a \u201cstatutory citizen\u201d\u2014created by legislative action.)<\/p>\n1875<\/strong> – This definition of “United States<\/span>” as a Corporation has its own citizens<\/span> (see United States v. Cruikshank<\/span>, 92 U.S. 542) who are generally referred to as United States citizens.<\/p>\n
1953<\/strong> – Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n
1967<\/strong> – Also Congressional Record , June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646): A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment<\/span>, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4<\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n
[This neatly explains once and for all what a \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d is in federal parlance, as opposed to popular speech, and underlines the need for Americans to forthrightly expatriate from any such \u201ccitizenship\u201d and instead declare their allegiance to the land<\/span> of their nativity, for example, California or Nevada or Ohio.]<\/strong>
\n______________________________________________________________<\/p>\nCan a corporation be a citizen?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Diversity of citizenship exists when opposing parties in a lawsuit are citizens of different states or a citizen of a foreign country. \u00a0If the party is a corporation, it is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated or is doing business.<\/span> If diversity of citizenship exists, it places the case under federal court jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.<\/strong>
\n______________________________________________________________<\/p>\nThe same duplicitous wordsmithing was done with the words \u201cUnited States of America\u201d\u2014
\n<\/strong>
\n From A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States<\/em>. By John Bouvier, published 1856:
\n<\/strong>
\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (First meaning given):
\n<\/strong>
\n (1) The name of this country. [That is, the actual land mass.] The United States, now thirty-one in number, are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and California.\u201d
\n<\/strong>
\n (Fifth meaning): (5)\u2014The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property, 1 Marsh, Dec. 177, 181, but it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law.<\/strong>
\n_____________________________________________________________<\/p>\nSo what does all this tell us? So far as the federal government is concerned the phrase \u201cUnited States\u201d has meant \u201cthe territories and District of Columbia\u201d since 1864, and the \u201cUnited States Corporation\u201d has been the \u201cgovernment\u201d of the \u201cterritories and District of Columbia\u201d since 1877.
\n<\/strong>
\n A similar thing was done with the phrase \u201cUnited States of America\u201d in which it was used as the name of this country, but then also used to name a corporation— the \u201cUnited States of America, Inc.\u201d
\n<\/strong>
\n It is these two privately owned and operated corporations which have been bankrupted consecutively— \u201cthe United States of America, Inc.\u201d in 1933 and the UNITED STATES entered into insolvency as of March 2015.
\n<\/strong>
\n When it is announced that the \u201cUNITED STATES\u201d is insolvent, what does that mean? It means that the corporation operating \u201cas\u201d the government of the \u201cterritories and District of Columbia\u201d is insolvent and subject to liquidation of its assets.
\n<\/strong>
\n And who — or what — is on the hook to pay for all this?
\n<\/strong>
\n All the \u201ccitizens of the UNITED STATES\u201d which this corporation created out of thin air to benefit itself and which it has operated under your names—- JOHN MARK DOE and MABEL HELEN RHODES and JEAN MARIE FITZPATRICK…. as \u201ca civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.\u201d
\n<\/strong>
\n Here you can clearly see that both the USA, Inc. and the US, Inc. are acting in collusion to bilk and indebt the unsuspecting American People by mischaracterizing them and their political status.
\n<\/strong>
\n What has been done here is nothing less than \u201cslavery by proxy\u201d.<\/strong>
\n A corporate franchise has been named after you, and then, you have been coerced and deceived into accepting the debts of that franchise via a \u201csimilar names\u201d deceit.
\n<\/strong>
\n Prior to 1933 a Foreign Situs Trust created by the USA, Inc. was named after a living man called \u201cJohn Frederick Doe\u201d and this Foreign Situs Trust was then also gratuitously named as a Surety for the bankrupt USA, Inc\u2019s debts. The actual man named John Frederick Doe was then pursued and forced to pay the debts owed in fact by this corporation. In 1999 that bankruptcy settled and the American People paid off every penny of it.
\n<\/strong>
\n In approximately 1944 the US. Inc., named a Cestui Que Vie Trust after the living man called \u201cJOHN FREDERICK DOE\u201d and this estate trust was named as the Surety for the US Inc.\u2019s debts. The actual man named John Frederick Doe was then pursued and forced to pay the debts owed by this corporate franchise, too.
\n<\/strong>
\n This past year, 2015, President Obama acting as the CEO in charge of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. (the USA, Inc\u2019s latest rendition organized under the laws of the United Nations City-State) announced the creation of a new franchise named after \u201cJohn Frederick Doe\u201d— a franchise of a bankrupt Puerto Rican Electric Utility named \u201cJOHN F. DOE\u201d operated under the laws of Puerto Rico.
\n<\/strong>
\n Meanwhile the living American who is the Holder in Due Course of the given name \u201cJohn Frederick Doe\u201d and who is in fact the owner and executor of his name and all derivatives thereof associated with him, is being subjected to false charges and racketeering on a scale unique in world history.<\/strong>
\n_________________________________________<\/p>\nSo…… What to DO about it?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
_________________________________________<\/p>\n
In order to answer that, you need a few more definitions and research….<\/strong><\/p>\n
What is NATIONALITY? –\u201cThat quality or character which arises from the fact of a person\u2019s belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, \u201cnationality\u201d is also used as opposed to \u201cterritoriality,\u201d for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory.\u201d \u00a0— The Law Dictionary.
\nPlease note that nationality<\/span> can be applied according to the country\u2014the land— where you are born, whereas citizenship<\/span> is a legal status<\/span> adopted when you are registered<\/span> with the government in some country<\/span>.<\/p>\nNationality can also be an inheritance from one\u2019s parents<\/span> as when a child is born to Americans living overseas, but one only becomes a citizen<\/span> of a country via the adoption<\/span> of a political status<\/span>.<\/p>\n
You can\u2019t change your nationality, but you can change your citizenship, i.e., political status.<\/p>\n
Every American–except first generation immigrants– was born on the land of one of the American states or born to parents or grandparents who were, and so by (1) birthright or by (2) inheritance, every American is naturally an American State National<\/span>, and not a \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d.<\/p>\n
You are a native of Florida or Wisconsin or Texas….and your proper nationality is as a Floridian, Wisconsinite or Texan….. and so on, and during your lifetime you do not \u201cbelong to\u201d the organic state being referenced, instead, the state\u2014the land— belongs to you.<\/p>\n
But then, a dirty trick was played on your Mother at the hospital.<\/strong> People she trusted came to her and told her that it was the \u201claw\u201d that she has to sign certain papers. Unknown to her, those papers register her baby as a \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d—- and we already know what that means. The baby is \u201cseized upon\u201d as a surety backing the debts of the USA, Inc. and the US, Inc. and via the illicit copyrighting of his given name, the baby is identified as chattel property belonging to these private mostly foreign owned corporations.<\/p>\n
However, fraud vitiates everything. It destroys all contracts and presumptions. It taints everything it touches. All Americans subjected to this undisclosed process have been defrauded and mischaracterized and deprived of their lawful status. There is no statute of limitations on the crime of fraud and it is recognized as crime in all venues and jurisdictions of law, national and international and global.<\/p>\n
Okay, so….<\/p>\n
Sorting the Poop from the Shinola….<\/p>\n
Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that \u201cthe term \u2018national of the United States\u2019 means (A) a citizen of the United States (read that, \u201cterritories and the District of Columbia\u201d), or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States (again, \u201cterritories and the District of Columbia\u201d).\u201d Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only to individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States.<\/p>\n
This is all talking about \u201ccitizens of the United States\u201d that is, \u201ccitizens of the federal government corporation\u201d.<\/p>\n
INA \u00a7 349 states that a citizen, whether a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization [JOHN FREDERICK DOE is a U.S. citizen by process of \u201cnaturalization\u201d] shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing certain acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality<\/span>. The fact of intention is critical; it is not the mere performance of the actions mentioned in \u00a7 349.<\/p>\n
Seven types of conduct are currently listed in the INA as expatriative. The potentially expatriating acts are: (1) applying for and obtaining naturalization in a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (2) making an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old<\/span><\/strong>; (3) serving in the military of a foreign country as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States; (4) serving in a foreign government position that requires an oath of allegiance to or the nationality of that foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (5) making a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship to a consular officer outside of the United States; (6) making a formal renunciation of citizenship while in the United States and during time that the United States is involved in a war; and (7) conviction for treason or attempting by force to overthrow the U.S. government [that is, corporation], including conspiracy convictions.<\/p>\n
——————————————————–<\/p>\n
Now, finally, consider this supremely important information regarding the separate and \u201cforeign\u201d status of the United States defined as \u201cterritories and District of Columbia\u201d (1864) with regard to the actual several states forming the United States (definition (3) from the Hooven case) —-nailed down by \u201cThe Informer\u201d:<\/p>\n
A key authority on this question (is the federal \u201cUnited States\u201d a foreign entity with respect to the states of the United States?) is the case of Hanley v. Donoghue, in which the U.S. Supreme Court defined separate bodies of State law as being legally “foreign” with respect to each other:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo court is to be charged with the knowledge of foreign laws; but they are well understood to be facts which must, like other facts, be proved before they can be received in a court of justice. [cites omitted] It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other<\/span>, and that the courts of one state are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to take judicial notice of, the laws of another state.\u201d<\/p>\n
[Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535]<\/p>\n
[6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885)]<\/p>\n
Another key U.S. Supreme Court authority on this question is the case of In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894). The authors of Corpus Juris Secundum (“CJS”), a legal encyclopedia, relied in part upon this case to arrive at the following conclusion about the “foreign” corporate status of the federal government:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287]<\/p>\n
[19 C.J.S. 883]<\/p>\n
Before you get the idea that this meaning of “foreign” is now totally antiquated, consider the current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, which defines “foreign state” very clearly, as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe several United States*** are considered “foreign” to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. … The term “foreign nations,” as used in a statement of the rule that the laws of foreign nations should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule.\u201d<\/p>\n
And a recent federal statute proves that Congress still refers to the 50 States as “countries”. When a State court in Alaska needed a federal judge to handle a case overload, Congress amended Title 28 to make that possible. In its reference to the 50 States, the statute is titled the “Assignment of Judges to courts of the freely associated compact states”. Then, Congress refers to these freely associated compact states as “countries”:<\/p>\n
(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) …. [!!!]<\/p>\n
[28 U.S.C. 297, 11\/19\/88]\u201d — End quote.<\/p>\n
So here is the Big Picture……<\/h2>\n
The government of the \u201cUnited States\u201d (read that as: \u201cthe territories and District of Columbia\u201d per the 1864 redefinition) is a corporation also called the \u201cUNITED STATES\u201d or \u201cU.S. Corp\u201d or \u201cUS, Inc.\u201d set up by the Act of 1877.<\/p>\n
That corporation doing business as the US, Inc., and a similar corporation operating as the USA, Inc., have been creating \u201ccitizens\u201d for themselves out of thin air, defined as corporate \u201cpersons\u201d of various kinds, named after living Americans.<\/p>\n
All of these foreign corporate franchises named after you are \u201ccitizens of the United States\u201d — meaning (4), \u201ccitizens of the United States\u201d or as Kitchens v. Steele put it, \u201ccitizens of the federal government\u201d [i.e., corporation].<\/p>\n
Currently, the US, Inc. version is doing business as a Cestui Que Vie Estate Trust under the name \u201cJOHN FREDERICK DOE\u201d or whatever your \u201cFIRST MIDDLE LAST\u201d name may be, operated out of Puerto Rico.<\/p>\n
The USA, Inc. version is doing business as a franchise of a bankrupt Puerto Rican Electric Utility under the name \u201cJOHN F. DOE\u201d or whatever your \u201cFIRST MIDDLE-INITIAL LAST\u201d name may be. Again, Puerto Rico, a Commonwealth Protectorate of the United States is operating as a semi-autonomous Home Base for all this crime against Americans.<\/p>\n
Take all this information into a nice, big, sticky Ball of Wax and what do you get?<\/h3>\n
(1) Since \u201cJOHN FREDERICK DOE\u201d is a naturalized \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d, \u201cHE\u201d can be expatriated by INA 349 (2) \u201cmaking an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old\u201d and (2) since the actual states of the Union are all foreign countries with respect to the \u201cUnited States\u201d referenced, you can repatriate \u201cJOHN FREDERICK DOE\u201d to Wisconsin or Illinois or wherever else he rightfully came from by issuing an Oath of Allegiance to the land he was born on—Wisconsin, Texas, etc., and (3) Sending a certified copy of the new Oath of Allegiance signed by John Frederick Doe (your name substituted appropriately) to John Forbes Kerry, the US (Corporation) Secretary of State, telling him that \u201cJOHN\u201d is expatriating and going home and by the way— all his assets are due and owing as a Priority Creditor of the UNITED STATES. Please send a copy to the United Nations Secretary General and ask him to notify the UN Bankruptcy Trustees presently trying to liquidate the assets of the UNITED STATES, so they can exclude JOHN FREDERICK DOE from the asset roster.<\/p>\n
Same thing with \u201cJOHN F. DOE\u201d.<\/p>\n
And there isn\u2019t a thing these con artists in suits can say, do, or complain about, because their other option is to admit to their crimes in front of the whole world.<\/p>\n
\u201cJohn Frederick Doe\u201d —is still standing on terra firma, still have your wits about you, and are still able to say that you are a \u201cCitizen of these United States\u201d.<\/p>\n
Example:<\/p>\n
Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance<\/p>\n
Whereas \u201cFIRST MIDDLE LAST\u201d is a naturalized \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d under the Diversity Clause of the Constitution(s) and is the age of majority and whereas such \u201ccitizenship\u201d was never desired nor intended nor willingly nor voluntarily entered into, \u201cFIRST MIDDLE LAST\u201d willingly and purposefully renounces all citizenship or other assumed political status related to the United States defined as \u201cthe territories and District of Columbia\u201d (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864<\/span>) and its government, a corporation doing business variously as the UNITED STATES, U.S. Corp, US, Inc., etc. formed under the Act of 1877, and does repatriate to the land of HIS birth known as Wisconsin (Texas, etc. as it applies) and does freely affirm HIS allegiance to the same actual and organic state of the Union and does accept HIS true Nationality as an American State National and an American State Vessel in all international commerce owned and operated by Doe, John Frederick of 1121 Petaluma Court, Felsburg, Florida, 10210.<\/p>\n
This do I certify, Witness and confirm this _____day of _______, 2016.<\/p>\n
______________________________ by John Frederick Doe, all rights reserved.<\/p>\n
Notary Witness<\/p>\n
Clark County<\/p>\n
Florida State<\/p>\n
Before me this _____day of ________ 2016 did appear one JOHN FREDERICK DOE and he did establish this Act of Expatriation and Oath of Allegiance freely and without coercion, in Witness whereof I set my sign and seal.<\/p>\n
_________________________________Notary; my commission expires on________________________.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Anna von Reitz Finally, Thank God and Thanks to Many People, a Remedy That Cannot Be Stopped or Side-Stepped or Ignored \u00a0—\u00a0Judge Anna<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=36636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=36636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=36636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=36636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}