How Police Officers Commit Treason

Submitted by Hamilton on Fri, 09/23/2016 - 08:53

In an effort to protect my friends in blue, I thought I would explain exactly how your actions could be a commission of treason. When you are enforcing statutes and codes, you are not enforcing "law". Law in these united states of America refers to the common law.

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land... Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of [for?], the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law ....Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

As was upheld in Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652, any court that uses statutes is considered an inferior court.

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.”

Since we are guaranteed a republican form of government in the united states of America, all government agents are required to obtain the consent of the governed. That means you are required to get the consent of each and every single people. Statutes are merely corporate policy for the corporation for whom you work.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. So if you arrest someone for driving under the influence when he informs you he does not consent, the first felony that you are guilty of is kidnapping, because you do not have the authority to detain [one of] a people, because people are in fact, sovereign.

In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. (emphasis added) AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld. LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves.....CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

Read that last quote. Do you as a police officer believe you could give the king a speeding citation or arrest him for driving under the influence? Of course, not. So how does this become treason.[?]

The Constitution for the United States of America  guarantees us the common law as we see in the Hurtado v. California case above. It also guarantees a republican form of government in Article IV Section 4, [Constitution for the united states of America]. So when you arrest someone for driving under the influence and he has caused no injury and he has not consented to your jurisdiction, you are "warring against the Constitution". That is treason. Treason is a capital offense.

The worst enemy to the united states of America are Americans serving as public servants, who war against the Constitution and try to find ways to punish the people, who are their superiors. The people are sovereign and public servants who attempt to use the terminology of "sovereign citizen" against the people for demanding the protection of their sovereignty, are also guilty of "warring against the Constitution". There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen.

There is a very large movement of people in these united states that has been working towards returning our government to within its bounds. We now have superior court judges, continental united states marshals and common law grand jury administrators who will administer the grand juries.

We are very close to having the arrest of the first judge and police officer ordered by a grand jury. The charges for the judge will include:

  1. Perjury,
  2. Conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241),
  3. Deprivation of rights under color of law (18 USC 242),
  4. Seditious contempt of constitution and the most egregious offense;
  5. Treason.

The police officer's charges will most likely include all but the perjury charge. The perjury charge the judges are guilty of is submitting a document to the jury to inform the jury that the "defendant in this case has pleaded not guilty.", when in fact the accused objected to the code and jurisdiction.

Of course, the police officer could also be charged for perjury if he is the one who does as one [officer?] in Texas did by claiming that the "State of Texas" was a "victim" because [one of] a people had cocaine.

Exactly how was Texas injured? This is obviously a ruse to fool the people, because under common law,

For a crime to exist there must be an injured party." - Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945 

So when a police officer claims the "State of Texas" was injured, that is also a false statement constituting perjury.

So please be careful, my friends in uniform. There are plenty of people out there who are ignorant who you can take advantage of; although, that too is wrong.

If someone objects to your jurisdiction, you just might want to let that one go, because the day is coming very soon, when you will be arrested and tried for the above mentioned crimes. I would also suspect that since most people involved in the common law movement do view the crimes very seriously, the result of a conviction for treason will end in death by hanging, which is the law.

Editor's Note - This sounds a lot like Josie when she warns cops to ACTUALLY do their job. It IS time.

Welcome to The Revolution!

This IS what it looks like.


Views: 139

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well said.

a solutions could be PMA.


© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service