A Peacefully Assembled Nation
Government of Indigenous Nationals
Treaty Registration #RE222805059US
UN OHCHR Registry 06 JUL 2015
ANPC Nation #RE222805045US
The Hague Registry 07 JUL 2015
A Private Membership Association (“PMA”) is men and woman collectively asserting and standing upon their rights to determine what devices, products, procedures, or services will be used by them to maintain the health and freedom of their own body, mind or spirit.
A PMA is like a private family (PMA creator = the head of the family; PMA members = family members). Just like in a close family, what is communicated or happens inside a family’s private home, among only family members are private matters generally immune from and not subject to censorship/control by any administrative agency of any government. Listen to this short intro:
PMAs have an established history and maintain a significant and unique standing in law; they are generally immune from most, if not all, state and federal Public Laws.
Drinking is allowed inside “private clubs” in “dry counties” in states of The United States of America where the sale of alcohol to the public is restricted or illegal; smoking is allowed inside “cigar bars” or "private clubs" in states having public laws prohibiting smoking in government buildings and in buildings open to the public; membership is restricted and only private rules apply inside private golf, baseball, football, soccer and other sports clubs; Men’s, Women’s, Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs; the Cub, Brownie, Boy and Girl Scouts of America; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.); the American Medical Association; and, even the local, state and federal BAR Associations, all of which are various forms of a PMA, generally follow only their own rules, not public law.
Benefits of a Private Membership Association
1. Enjoy a general immunity to public laws, regulations and internal rules of local, state and federal administrative agencies (including, but not limited to, the FDA & CDC) that protect the public health.
Properly set up, what occurs inside a Private Membership Association by and among members is private; generally not subject to any public law, regulation, or agency rule. A PMA is similar to a private family in that what is stated or done inside the family home by, to and among family members is not generally subject to any governmental scrutiny, censorship or control. Just as peoples’ speech is generally immune from governmental restriction; so is the speech and acts of the PMA members and what is published and done by and between PMA members in the PMA;
The above mentioned immunity is not absolute. The single exception is that neither a PMA nor its members may do anything that creates a “clear and present danger that they will bring about substantial evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
2. Increase your income safely. When you act and communicate with PMA members you do so privately, each party asserting and standing upon their constitutionally secured rights to freedom of association, speech, the press; the right to privacy, the right of private exchanges between parties and other rights.
This may afford you a freedom in advertising, marketing and operation of your business that you may never have experienced before. In a PMA, communicating only with PMA members, you are now able to state and publish all the true facts (or at least the true facts that you want to disclose) about what your personal experience, the experience of others, and what verifiable testing has shown that people have experienced using your device, product, procedure or service and what that device, product, procedure or service really offers PMA members. For example, on a PMA’s website, in the “for members only section” publishing testimonials sent to you would not violate the public law named Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Being able to demonstrate, speak and publish the truth about what your product, procedure or service will do for people and animals in your advertising and marketing should lead to excitement about your device, product, procedure or service, markedly increase sales volume and afford you greater profit with safety.
3. Greater Peace of Mind is achieved by not having to worry about qualifying for any license from any licensing administration or board, or having any agency determine how you practice, or censoring what you can state or publish about your device, product, procedure or service. This frees you of the time and expense burdens placed upon persons who deal with the public and, thereby, allows you to react quicker to ever changing markets and be more creative and relaxed in your thinking, advertising, marketing and in the way you run your business. This also reduces stress.
Details, Facts and Law
The FDA is an administrative agency of the United States delegated defined limited authority and power; created and empowered by a Public Law.
According to the “Statement of FDA Mission” the “FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety and efficacy human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation … .”
The FDA is authorized to protect the “public health.”
In protecting the public health the FDA acts as if it was delegated sole discretion regarding what information can be printed or written on healthcare devices, products, procedures or services that can be advertised or disclosed to the public over the air (radio/TV), the Internet, through the mail, in any public advertising or otherwise about anything that can be taken into or used on a human (or animal) that may or does affect the health of the body, mind or spirit.
In effect, the FDA acts as if it has the sole authority to censure or decide what you/your patients, clients or customers can hear, read, say, or see regarding information on healthcare related devices, products, procedures and services.
A man/woman wears many hats throughout his/her life and may act in a private character and capacity such as when being a son or daughter, brother or sister, uncle or aunt, husband or wife, father or mother, etc.
Conversely, a man/woman may act in a commercial character and capacity such as when being a doctor, bus driver or any other licensed professional; or in a public character and capacity such as being a state/federal government agent, employee, officer or official (a “public servant”) or as a legislative “person” such as a “taxpayer”.
A governmental authority/entity can act as a body politic, in a sovereign character and capacity, protecting the life, liberty, rights and property of its citizens; or, as a body corporate, acting in a commercial or public character and capacity.
Commercial persons must be tightly controlled/regulated because they are only concerned with generating a profit and are subject to commercial law and the terms and conditions of the contract(s) in which they are a party (no constitutional rights here). Public servants must be tightly controlled or regulated because their acts or omissions can affect everyone or, at least a large body of people\persons other than themselves.
Public Law, Regulations and internal Rules of administrative agencies of governments control the privilege of disclosing information, by way of publishing or uttering certain statements; or of offering certain devices, products, procedures and services to the public.
The character and capacity in which you act determines the body of law (constitutional or commercial) that is applicable. And, therein lays the first key to rectifying the problem. PMA members must move out of the public sector and into a private domain.
What is a Private Membership Association?
A Private Membership Association is men and woman collectively asserting and standing upon their unalienable constitutionally secured perfect rights; their un-delegated/reserved authority; their pre-existing claim to absolute authority and control over the health of their own body, mind and spirit and rights (hereinafter collectively referred to simply as “rights”) developed under the laws of the United States made in pursuance of The Constitution for the United States of America, 1789 CE, as amended and ratified by passage of The Bill of Rights in 1791 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”).
People that unanimously agree with the terms, conditions, obligations, provisions, principles and purpose set forth in a contract (hereinafter referred to as the “PMA contract”) and who refuse to apply for or accept any “public” statutory “entity” such as a corporation, LLC, foundation, partnership, social, fraternal, religious or other entity created by any local, municipal, city, county, state, the federal or any international governmental authority lawfully operating in The United States of America (hereinafter collectively referred to as “governmental authority”).
Over 241 years ago “We the People” created several independent compact commonwealths and states which, in turn, created the the Nation named:
The United States of America.
and, its government:
The United States.
A PMA is created by and exists upon the exact same authority and power that people asserted in The Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America; The Articles of Confederation; The Constitution for the United States of America; The Bill of Rights and, even, in the Laws made in pursuance thereof.
A PMA functions by the members acting as people, in their real character and capacity (rather than acting as commercial/legal/legislative/public “persons”), asserting and standing upon their constitutionally secured rights to freedom of association, speech, the press, to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures, to their individual right to privacy and other rights and authorities not mentioned herein that are all in full force and effect when people knowingly and voluntarily choose to become, as real people, members of a PMA.
A PMA does not need any authority or permission, of any kind whatsoever, from any government for its creation or in order for it to continue to exist and function.
Public Law, Regulations and internal Rules of administrative agencies that regulate the public do not generally reach a PMA because they would impair, impede, obstruct or defeat the PMA members’ ability to discuss, hear, read or speak about, print, obtain and use things which may be prohibited to be disclosed to or used by the public.
The advantage of placing your healthcare operation, product manufacturing facility, distribution, transportation, wholesale or retail sales company or business organization in a PMA, is that in a PMA you can educate PMA members on, prescribe for their use, or actually use on members any natural substance including, but not limited to, treated air or water; all natural foods; any individual (or combination of) vitamins, minerals, herbs, enzymes, phytonutrients etc.; raw or whole (unpasteurized) milk and dairy products; any creams, lotions, salves, etc.; any devices/products that produce or use color, electricity, light, magnetism, ozone, radiation, sound, vibrational energy; or any other thing which may not have been submitted to the FDA for approval; which may have been submitted to the FDA for approval but were not approved by the FDA at all, or not approved by the FDA for the specific use that you have in mind, but which may, in fact, help the body, mind or spirit heal a condition or disease that you or someone you know may have.
Furthermore, you can educate PMA members on how harmful mercury fillings and root canals and vaccines can actually be; how medical procedures may cause other problems; what a particular drug really does and what all its side effects are; and, you can offer alternatives to dental and medical procedures and pharmaceuticals which may do more harm in the long run than temporary good.
You can concentrate on providing products and services that help people heal rather than spend your precious limited time/financial resources dealing with public laws, regulations, (state/federal code sections) and administrative agency (FDA) operational rules or the rules of any state medical examining or licensing board.
Information about natural products and services including, but not limited to, air and water purifiers or conditioners; naturally grown whole foods, vitamins, minerals, herbs, enzymes, phytonutrients etc.; raw (unpasteurized) milk and other dairy products; ozone and ozone generating machines; devices including, but not limited to, low power lasers, scenars and others that generate/use color, electricity, light, magnetism, sound, radiation, vibrational energy resonance; creams, gels, lotions, and salves containing any of the above and any and all other kinds of natural food, devices, substances, educational, informative, or entertaining material which can be used for healthcare purposes (stored on any type of media) but which have been neither submitted to the FDA for approval nor approved (or denied approval) by the FDA, can be freely talked about, obtained, exchanged, viewed and used on and by members of the PMA, within the confines of the PMA.
A PMA does not generally have to shoulder the obligation or spend the time/money necessary to meet regulatory requirements for FDA approval on any such information, device, product, or service before that information, product, or service could be manufactured, sold, prescribed for, recommended, used on, or purchased privately by PMA members.
PMAs are under no general lawful/legal obligation to recognize any statutory title of public competency, education or training (licensed persons/experts). All proper parties in a PMA are equal. There is no “doctor-patient” type relationship in any properly run PMA. PMA members are free to exchange any information whatsoever on any topic they choose under the Rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press secured by the First Article in Amendment to the Constitution and can speak or write about, listen to, or read any information, use or obtain any information, product, or service on any terms agreeable to any member who chooses to provide that information, product, or service.
A PMA generally falls outside the jurisdiction of Public Law, Regulations and internal Rules of administrative agencies including, but not limited to, the Public Law that created the FDA and and other agencies.
If you are a practicing healthcare provider or you currently manufacture, distribute, sell (even as an independent sales agent or distributor) any healthcare information, product(s) or service(s); give information about, prescribe, recommend for use or actually use on patients/clients/customers anything that is or could be regulated by any governmental authority, whether any governmental authority currently regulates it or not; you are or should be well aware of the public laws, regulations and agency rules (restrictions) placed upon dissemination of healthcare information, products or services by local, municipal, city, county, state and federal dental and medical licensing boards and healthcare administrative agencies, none of which would generally apply to your dealings within a PMA with PMA members.
Why is a Private Membership Association right for you?
A short primer on the history of the laws of The United States of America is appropriate. By the 4th day of July, 1776 the people then comprising The United States of America had had enough of oppressive British rule and taxation and declared their independence from the King of England (and all other Monarchies, Dictators and Military Rulers of Europe).
The United States of America, being a newly formed Nation comprised of 13 independent compact commonwealths and states, adopted the common-law of England and the Law of Nations, for its initial body of governing law; thus, in The United States of America, there is no such thing as “rule by divide right” or some sort of “god-given right to ruler-ship” and no dictatorial or military type of rule is recognized.
The foundation document that created The United States of America is The Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America. Other organic documents include, but are not limited to, the constitutions of the original 13 (and all other) states; The Articles of Confederation; and The Constitution, which in Article VI, Clause 1, states:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The one supreme Court, enforcing and amplifying the above, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) states that:
“It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.
If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.’ Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.’
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
‘No person,’ says the Constitution, ‘shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.’
Here, the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
Condensing the above stated in the most simple terms possible the supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison that any law that is contrary to the Constitution is void.
Moreover, the supreme Court, in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18-20 (1958), stated:
“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: ‘If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .’ United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.
A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, ‘it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . .’ Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398.
It is, of course, quite true that the responsibility for public education is primarily the concern of the States, but it is equally true that such responsibilities, like all other state activity, must be exercised consistently with federal constitutional requirements as they apply to state action.
The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal. State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the Amendment's command that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right of a student not to be segregated on racial grounds in schools so maintained is indeed so fundamental and pervasive that it is embraced in the concept of due process of law. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497.
The basic decision in Brown was unanimously reached by this Court only after the case had been briefed and twice argued and the issues had been given the most serious consideration. Since the first Brown opinion three new Justices have come to the Court. They are at one with the Justices still on the Court who participated in that basic decision as to its correctness, and that decision is now unanimously reaffirmed. The principles announced in that decision and the obedience of the States to them, according to the command of the Constitution, are indispensable for the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our fundamental charter for all of us.
Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth.”
and held that state government officials are bound to comply with supreme Court rulings and court orders based upon the supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
(See also the concurring opinion written by Justice FRANKFURTER.)
As stated above, governmental authorities can act as a body politic or as a body corporate. In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), one of the most often quoted cases decided by the Supreme Court, the justices describe the fundamental difference between man acting in his private character and capacity (as himself) and a “person” in a public character and capacity acting as a corporate officer when the court stated:
"... we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be created for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter.
Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.
It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how those franchises have been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose." (Emphasis supplied.)
All of the above beg the question, from whom did the Constitution derive authority?
The Constitution, and the constitutions for all 50 states, all claim to be authored by "We the People." In other words, in The United States of America, all authority and power flows from the People to the government; from the government to its administrative agencies; from its agencies to the offices of the agencies and from the office to the agents, employees, officers and officials occupying said office.
Contracts are constitutionally protected. In Florida that protection is secured by Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, which states that "no bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."
Article 1, section 10, of the Constitution for the United States of America prohibits Congress from passing any “… Law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
The above stated are perfect rights which can be lawfully/legally enforced.
We the people today, just as “We the People” did some 241 years ago, can author and enter into contracts creating Private Membership Associations without requesting or receiving any authority, permission or approval from any government.
YOU CANNOT SAVE THE PUBLIC!
A contract that creates a Private Membership Association, in the private sector, deals only with members who knowingly and willingly assert and stand upon their state and federal constitutionally secured rights and conduct their affairs privately.
Based upon rights expressly set forth in sections of the state and federal constitutions; rights that have been incorporated in various provisions and sections of the constitutions; and rights that are created or recognized in the laws made in pursuance of the states’ and federal constitutions; the Peoples’ (our) reservation of certain authorities and powers that were not delegated to government; and peoples’ exercise of their pre-existing claim to absolute control over their own body, mind, and spirit, “We the People” inherently possess all the authority and power necessary to create private membership associations through contracts that we author, enter and administer.
The bottom line is that whatever you do that is good, moral, naturally right, beneficial to mankind or lawful (regardless of being prohibited by any state or federal statute) communicated or performed in the assertion of and standing upon the above-referenced constitutionally secured rights, within the confines of a PMA, by and between PMA members only, are private contractual matters which are not generally controlled, governed or regulated by Public Law, Regulations or administrative agency Rules.
A PMA is open to the public only for the singular purpose of people joining the PMA.
Deal only with members of a PMA, privately, in a PMA, in the private domain and you are protected by several rights secured by the state and federal constitutions and you are not, generally, subject to Public Laws such as the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The only exception to a PMA’s general immunity from the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the FDA’s administration of the law is that neither a PMA nor any PMA member may commit a common law crime or commit any act, make an omission, publish or utter a statement which creates a “clear and present danger that they will bring about substantial evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
NEW TO ANPC??
**IMPORTANT! All members NEW to ANPC International, MUST Click the button below to fill out and submit the Questionnaire and be pre-screened. We then reach out to you for further instructions. **
ALREADY AN ANPC MEMBER???
**Those who are currently members with a Member ID card, can simply continue below and sign up to enjoy the benefits of being part of a foreign Private Members Association.
QUESTIONS?? Email us at email@example.com