Click on the image above 

Click on the image to educate yourself

{Self claimed Constitutional officer} {We the people of the united states of America} {uncovered discovery} notes

{Self claimed Constitutional officer} {We the people of the united states of America} {uncovered discovery} Dwane Eugene Kirkland UCC 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice 04:35:11 PM 06/24/19 Hale v Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 89 {1906} **** We the people, To whom it may concern, This was decided by the United states Supreme Court in 1906. This has been covered up with constructive fraud and collusion by the attorneys and judges and police officers either by intent or error. Or ignorant of the law. So with the constructive fraud peeled back and the gibberish from the corporations banker judges lawyers and law writers of the legislative fiat, that have no lawful authority unless there is no conflict with the positive law. Now today in America the Encroachment infringement is like some kind of third world country mimicking the Gestapo police asking for papers and invading ones privacy and violating the basic max-mus laws Gods basic law of the common man or women. History tells us in the Past there was trials for the Gestapo police tactics that lead up to the hangings of the ones who infringed and encroached and committed Mala insane crimes and committed treasonous crimes.

Today s law enforcement the courts lower inferior courts unknown courts ucc courts have taken the individual rights under the{Self claimed Constitutional officer} democracy mob rule of Germany democracy in correlation and harmony by its trickery stealthy tactics.

If there is a victim they must come forward in a process to file papers of the alleged crime committed against them, A true victim or property damage has to come forward to be filed as a affidavit process in a timely manner, according to provisions that are locked in by the 9th and 10th Amendments, that are called provisions. The judge and the attorneys and officers seem to forget that there is elements of a crime that is required in order for a crime to exist.

They seem to get the civil matters mixed up with the criminal procedures of the actual law of the land v the sea. They either know of the schemes or the Admiralty and the commercial laws are not, they seem to operate under the admiralty and commerce and commercial schemes that are only for commercial and for the commerce - Road for hire. {There is a distinctive difference} They have been robing the masses of the private sectors for so long they think they can still keep on doing it even though the schemes have been exposed.

According to lawful provisions under the due process clauses 4th 5th 6th 7th the accused has a right to cross examine the one that was harmed by the accused actions.

The accused has a right to not consent or waive any Constitutional rights. This would be the main reason that they the judges and lawyers and officers do not want the Constitutions to be bound as it is to be bound to all offices operating under the Government Constitutional agreement.

Its mostly the inferior courts that cover the constructive fraud upon the people who don't know or don't care. They seem to want to abolish the actual locked laws that are not for change for bid or for sale or for vote. They are locked in.

BILL OF RIGHTS. The Constitution is for the masses not the government it is to limit the government over reach and delegated powers granted by the masses.

The masses is the key they are the kings and the government is to serve.{Self claimed Constitutional officer} Government institution can not use the 5 th amendment to there protections of committing crimes against the masses.

The whole purpose of the government is to protect life limb and property for the masses the people we the people. The government is limited by Constitutional contract. We must also come to the process that lead up to the creation of the crimes the judge and the lawyers create against the public.

According to law supreme law a state can not create a crime against the masses individual rights. Notes/ No state shall create a basic fundamental right into a crime- and justify it and diminish rights- who says so ? {Miller /v US, 230 F 2d 486 ,489} with no injured party a complaint is invalid on its face {Gibson v. Boyle,139 Ariz. 512} Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 an unconstitutional act is not law.

It confers no rights and poses no duties, affords no protections, and creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative though it had never been passed . Conflict - no victim nor property damage. None can come forward to be questioned pertaining to the matter. U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Five: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service, in time of War, or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The judges and lawyers and police officers who all have a role in the due process. clearly encroach and infringe as history shows of encroachment. They skip the merits of the elements of a crime to justify there action upon the actual victims that give in to the waiving of rights, by there trickery schemes, and the ignoring and not complying to the article 6 paragraph 2, and the article 1, section 9 and 10. according to the Constitutional contract discovery. Notes/ Additional findings and discovery-Owen v Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398: (1982) Main v Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502: (1982)- no deprivation under color of law. So the state and institutions that represent a state under the color of law are violating the due process clauses and the bill of rights and the Constitutional agreement between the people.

The opinion of this case that was discovered, says this- The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights, as a private citizen. Don't forget there is a distinctive difference in the citizenship. According to the equal protecting clause the trickery 14th amendment.{Self claimed Constitutional officer} That gives you all the privileges v the actual guaranteed God given rights. Don t be fooled, because they do trick you with the unknown contract that was not disclosed according to law that both parties must see and disclose of the contract between the parties. Yes they teach this to the lawyers judges and some police officer, most police officer are programed to follow orders and don't think for there self's.

Its not their fault though. He or she is entitled to carry on his or her private business in his or her own way. His or her power to contract is unlimited.

He or she owes no duty to the state or to his or her neighbors to divulge his or her business, or to open his or her doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him or her.

He or she owes no duty to the state, since He or she receives nothing there from, beyond the protections of his or her life and property. Rights are such existed by the law of the land {Common law}Gods law- Long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him or her by due process of the law, and in accordance with Constitution.

He or she owes nothing to the public so long as he or she does not tress pass upon their rights. Now we know why they the government or institutions judges lawyers and police officers and law makers want to take the Constitutions of the sister states out of the process, and they are always working hard to cover the it up.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43 at 89 1906. Hale v Henkel is binding all the courts of the United State of America until another Supreme court case says so. No other Supreme court case case has overturned Hale v Henkel has been cited by federal and state appellate court systems over 1,600 times- In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case.

Compared with other previously decoded supreme court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of the governmental institutions.{Self claimed Constitutional officer} Actually there is one more case, Marbarry v Madison US 1803. that was uncovered.

There is many in the shepherds case law documentation to. And 16 th am-jur case laws books under Constitutional law, ove 300 pages of uncovered law that is covered by constructive fraud and unconstitutional acts and conflicting law that is void and null.

Link/ understanding by-dwane-kirkland-ucc-1-207-1-308-w

THE SECRET OF THE SPECIAL MARITIME JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES EXPOSED REVEALING THE MOST REPUGNANT FRAUD EVER PERPETRATED ON THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A BRIEF DISSERTATION EXPOSING THE TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF MODERN CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS by VALIANT LIBERTY COPYRIGHT BY VALIANT LIBERTY, 2001 by VALIANT LIBERTY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PERMISSION TO COPY, PUBLISH, REPRINT AND DISTRIBUTE IN ANY MEDIUM IS EXPRESSLY GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT THIS ARTICLE BE REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRE, COMPLETE, AND UNEDITED VERSION AND THAT ACKNOWLEDGMENT BE GIVEN TO VALIANT LIBERTY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE SCOPE OF THE FRAUD The trials and tribulations that many people accused of “criminal offenses” are a direct result of not understanding the nature and cause of the accusation. The end result of this lack of knowledge and understanding is that the United States and the States have the largest prison population in the world and execute the most people. Lives and families are destroyed.

Family farms are stolen by unscrupulous judges and attorneys. Hard-working folks who have done no wrong have lost their homes and savings and have been reduced to a state of poverty by an encounter with the American system of injustice. The horror stories are limitless.

This author believes that this lack of understanding is the result of the “dumbing down of America,” a part of a scheme devised and orchestrated by foreign and domestic enemies of the people of the United States of America, not the least of which are the American Bar Association and the various State Bar Associations which sprang from England. These Bar Associations have concocted a Luciferian scheme bringing the maritime jurisdiction onto the land and the scheme undoubtedly includes every member of every bar association up to the dishonorable justices of the Supreme Court.

These foreign and domestic enemies of the people of the united States of America are believed by many, including the author, to have schemed for years, at least since the founding of our nation, to establish a total takeover of not only our country, but the entire planet and to enslave the people in their demonic quest to establish a One World Government or “New World Order” created out of the chaos of the destruction of Liberty and to be founded upon the ruins of the principles on which our once great nation was established and with the slave labor supplied by a once free, self sufficient and proud people. TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined The term ''special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States'', as used in this title, includes: (1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State. (2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line. (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquiredby the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. (4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States. (5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State,{Self claimed Constitutional officer} Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State. (6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard. (7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States. (8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States. -SOURCE- (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 685; July 12, 1952, ch. 695, 66 Stat. 589; Pub. L. 97-96, Sec. 6, Dec. 21, 1981, 95 Stat. 1210; Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 1210, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2164; Pub. L. 103-322, title XII, Sec. 120002, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2021.) The broad language of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes whether or not they are Federal or States crimes “commercial crimes.” In the Propeller Genessee Chief, supra, it was revealed that admiralty courts have jurisdiction over interstate commerce, so it would follow that the crimes listed in 27 CFR 72.11 are cognizable in an admiralty or maritime court, and such are commercial courts. The relevant part of the text is as follows: Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime. In the Ebsworth & Ebsworth lecture of 1994, infra, Proctor Wiswall states: “Congress has been repeatedly held by the Court to have the power to extend the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction by statute, and Congress has repeatedly exercised that power;” (see e.g., The "Lottawana", 88 U.S. 558 (1875); also Panama Railroad v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924)). What many of the victims accused of maritime “crimes don’t realize is that admiralty and maritime jurisdictions were merged with the law and equity jurisdictions in 1966 (See: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notes to Supplementary Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims). All four causes of action (or natures of the cause) which were once separate and distinct are now rolled into one set of rules and indistinguishable from one another in our modern courts. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (FRCP) Rule 1 provides that: “These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or in admiralty with the exceptions stated in rule 81.” Rule 2 provides that: “There shall be one form of action to be known as “civil action.” FRCP Rule 9(h) provides in part: “If the claim is cognizable only in admiralty, it is an admiralty ormaritime claim for those purposes whether so identified or not.” FRCP Rule 38(e) provides that: “These rules shall not be construed to create a right to a trial by jury of the issues in an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of rule 9(h). Well now, aren’t the rules revealing. Maybe this explains why the judge can amend or reverse a jury verdict, or even jail the jurors for contempt if they don’t do what the judge tells them to do. It has happened. The jury is just there for window dressing to make the sheep think that there is a trial by jury. Law, equity, admiralty and maritime, the once separate and distinct jurisdictions are now neatly rolled into one set of rules, tried in the same courtroom with the same judge, on the same docket and with nothing to distinguish the different jurisdictions from one another. A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF THE USE OF THE MARITIME JURISDICTION BY THE LAWYERS AND THEIR MINIONS It should be becoming apparent to the reader what is really going on in the Federal and State courts when one is charged with a penal offense, and it should be apparent that penal is not the same as criminal. Take the issuance of a traffic ticket for example. The lawyer’s minion, the police officer, goes out on the public rights of way to solicit business for his master, the prosecuting attorney for the CITY OF CORRUPTION or the COUNTY OF TYRANNY, both of which are corporate instrumentalities of the STATE OF CONFUSION. This solicitation of business for the lawyer by the police officer is called Champerty. 4 Champerty is, or at least used to be, a tort and a crime at common law. 4 Black’s 6 th defines “Champerty” as a bargain between a stranger and a party in a lawsuit by which the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part of any judgment proceeds; it is one type of “maintenance,” the more general term which refers to maintaining, supporting, or promoting another person’s litigation. “Maintenance” consists of maintaining, supporting, or promoting the litigation of another.The police officer lurks around and finds someone violating a traffic regulation, let’s say for driving an unregistered motor vehicle, arrests him, and issues a citation on the presumption that the “offender” is bound in some undisclosed manner to the maritime jurisdiction, a presumption probably created by the existence of the state driver license, or on the presumption that the STATE has acquired an interest in the “motor vehicle” being driven by the offender, or on the presumption that the STATE has an interest in the offender himself. On threat of imprisonment, the cop forces the “offender” to sign a “citation” as a promise to appear in a certain court at a certain time. This citation is a contract to compel specific performance. The cop signed and the offender signed. It looks like a legitimate contract, except for a couple of problems. The first problem is that it was signed under a threat. That alone should be enough to void the contract. The second problem is that the cop did not pay any “consideration” to the offender to perform. Want of consideration is always a defense under the Texas Business and Commerce Code, (same as the UCC) Sec. 3.408, unless there is an underlying or “antecedent” obligation, and there is no evidence of an{Self claimed Constitutional officer} antecedent obligation, but it is presumed. A third problem is the unconscionability of the contract. The authors will not discuss unconscionability 5 here, except to say that it is unconscionable to force someone to contract under threat, coercion, or duress and unconscionability can be grounds to void a contract. If the offender does not sign the citation, the cop, exercising the quasi in rem maritime jurisdiction, seizes the offender (in his ens legis 6 capacity), and usually the “motor vehicle” which are merely things under maritime law and throws the offender in jail (warehouse) without the need of a warrant. The offender is eventually brought before some magistrate to enter a plea in a court of maritime jurisdiction and the only issue before the court is whether or not the motor vehicle was registered. When the offender identifies himself by admitting his name and enters a plea, the quasi in rem action automatically converts to a maritime person am action, in which the real man is held liable for actions of the property in which the State claims a priority interest and the offender has become the defendant. Adherence to the constitutional requirements for due process are not required in the maritime jurisdiction because of the presumption that the offender agreed to be abused in this manner when he signed the presumed maritime contract or granted the presumed interest in the ens leg is or the motor vehicle, or both. This is the same situation Cadet Custer found himself in, on the presumption that he had signed the Articles of War, he was subject to the penalties prescribed by them. Custer avoided the sentence because he shifted the burden of proof by challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the court-martial. In the instances of our traffic violation and Custer’s court-martial, the onus probandi 7 has been thrown on the defendant. He is put into the unenviable position of proving that he did not commit the offense. He is put into the position of proving a negative, which is usually an impossibility, and he is going to pay the penal sum required by the contract. He is guilty until proven innocent. The defendant’s remedy, if he has one, is to shift the burden of proof or onus probandi to the STATE’s lawyer, the prosecutor. He can do this by challenging the jurisdiction of the subject matter and by challenging the presumptions by admitting evidence to the contrary. The subject matter is merely the facts of the case. Facts must be properly admitted into evidence according to the rules of court. If there are no facts in evidence, there is no subject matter. If there is no subject matter, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and the only action the court can take is to dismiss the claim. 5 For more on unconscionability, see UCC 2-302 and related notes. Black’s 6 th defines “ens legis” as a creature of the law; an artificial being, as contrasted with a natural person. 7 Onus probandi means: Burden of proving; the burden of proof. The strict meaning of the term "onus probandi" is that, if no evidence is adduced by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. Black's Law Dictionary, 6 th Ed. 6The Court may not inquire into the controversies between the parties until such time as the subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked by the parties. The subject matter jurisdiction of a court is not prima facie. The Supreme Court has held that: "A man must assign a good reason for coming (to the court). If the fact is denied, upon which he grounds his right to come (into the court), he must prove it. He, therefore, is the actor in the proof, and, consequently, he has no right, where the point is contested, to throw the onus probandi on the defendant." Maxfield's Lessee v. Levy, 4 U.S. 330. [Emphasis added] Now the question arises, how is the defendant going to shift the burden of proof? Maybe he should admit some facts into evidence denying the presumptions and follow the court’s rules of evidence when he does it. Maybe he should challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Maybe he should demand some discovery by demanding the prosecutor bring the contract or other obligation into court and properly admit it into evidence, and follow the court’s rules of discovery when he demands the production of the documents. Maybe the defendant could shift this burden of proof by admitting a simple affidavit into evidence of the case stating that the defendant denies that he signed any contract or other obligation that binds him to the maritime or admiralty jurisdiction. That the defendant did not convey any interest, right or title of his car or himself to the STATE. If these facts are properly admitted into evidence, the burden of proof is shifted to the prosecutor to prove the existence of the contract or other obligation by admitting the original into evidence, and this must be done by the real party in interest, whoever it is. If, on being unable or unwilling to admit the contract or other obligation into evidence, the prosecutor refuses to withdraw the claim and the judge refuses to dismiss the case they will be proceeding without subject matter jurisdiction. With no subject matter jurisdiction they have no official or judicial immunity. The courts have held: When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938). When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). "We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200. Maybe if the court refuses to back off the defendant should demand that the judge take mandatory judicial notice of the above cases and similar cases. If the court still does not back off and worse comes to worse, the defendant should raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction after trial and before sentencing at{Self claimed Constitutional officer} allocution. Allocution must be demanded before sentencing or the right is presumed waived. If the ratsstill don’t back off the defendant can make a direct appeal to the appellate court and on to the Supreme Court of the United States; he can file petitions for the writ of habeas corpus; he can sue the perpetrators, i.e., the cop for champerty, the lawyer for barratry and bringing a case with unclean hands, the judge for lack of jurisdiction, and all of them for conspiracy to fraudulently conceal the true nature and cause of the accusation, and maybe even for RICO. It is never too late to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. It ain’t over until the defendant gives up. The courts have held and the rules reveal that: Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties, conferred by consent, or ignored by court. Babcock & Wilson v. Parsons Corp., 430 F.2d 531 (1970). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived and courts may raise the issue sua sponte” FRCP, Rule 12(h). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that is never waived.” FRCP, Rule 12(h)3. Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after trial. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 1161 (D.C. Pa., 1980). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and can even be raised on appeal after judgment on the merits. Monaco v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 514 F.Supp. 357 (D.C., Pa., 1981) Judgment of court lacking jurisdiction is void” Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 110 S.Ct. 2105 (1990). Many “patriots” have discovered that the flag in the court room is a gold-fringed maritime or admiralty flag. Extensive research has been done on the subject. The research indicates that there can be no doubt that the court displays a maritime flag. So what! It is obvious the court is a court of maritime jurisdiction enforcing maritime contracts. Many patriots have gone to jail challenging the jurisdiction of the maritime flag. Hind sight is 20/20, but they should have been challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. They should have been rebutting the presumption of the contract and shifting the burden of proof. The most egregious thing that our tyrannical government does is the enforcement of the death penalty in maritime causes. The authors have no objection to the execution of a man clearly guilty of a heinous axe murder, rightfully and lawfully convicted. What we object to is the fact that the “offender,” even if guilty, is not executed for the heinous act, whatever it might have been, but he is executed by a corporation, a fiction, for breaching one of its contractual maritime penal rules. If the corporation can make a rule requiring the execution of a man convicted of murder in a maritime court, it can make a rule to execute a man for spitting on the sidewalk. If the man executed is later found to be innocent, too bad. The corporation made a mistake, they are sorry, but there is no one real man to be held accountable. All the acts required to accuse, convict, and execute the victim were done by licensed agents acting on behalf of a corporation, and no one is accountable. They were just doing their job. In recent times, the only other thing that the government has done that compares with this Draconian intent of oppression of these maritime executions, is the massacre at Waco. That too, was done under an admiralty or maritime jurisdiction on the presumption that the people murdered were nothing but property under a maritime contract wherein they agreed to be tortured and murdered. The STATE OF TEXAS and most of the other States are not only liars, they are murderers. And with that final thought, we end with this article with this prayer: “Lord, come quickly and forgive them not, for they know what they do. Amen.”

Views: 43


You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service