This comes to us as a reply from Edward Johnston,
via facebook site called
"No License Plates Required"
4 U.S. Code § 101 - Oath by members of legislatures and officers
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
1.Theft and robbery by the government in the guise of “taxation”
2.Government by decree rather than by law
3.Extortion under the color of law in violation 18 U.S.C. §872.
4.Tyranny
5. Socialism
6.Mob rule and a tyranny by the “have-nots” against the “haves”
7.18 U.S.C. §241: Conspiracy against rights. The IRS shares tax return information with states of the union, so that both of them can conspire to deprive you of your property.
8.18 U.S.C. §242: Deprivation of rights under the color of law. The Fifth Amendment says that people in states of the Union cannot be deprived of their property without due process of law or a court hearing. Yet, the IRS tries to make it appear like they have the authority to just STEAL these people’s property for a fabricated tax debt that they aren’t even legally liable for.
9.18 U.S.C. §247: Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs
10.18 U.S.C. §872: Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.
11.18 U.S.C. §876: Mailing threatening communications. This includes all the threatening notices regarding levies, liens, and idiotic IRS letters that refuse to justify why government thinks we are “liable”.
12.18 U.S.C. §880: Receiving the proceeds of extortion. Any money collected from Americans through illegal enforcement actions and for which the contributors are not "liable" under the law is extorted money, and the IRS is in receipt of the proceeds of illegal extortion.
13.18 U.S.C. §1581: Peonage, obstructing enforcement. IRS is obstructing the proper administration of the Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution, which require that they respect those who choose NOT to volunteer to participate in the federal donation program identified under Subtitle A of the I.R.C.
14.18 U.S.C. §1583: Enticement into slavery. IRS tries to enlist “nontaxpayers” to rejoin the ranks of other peons who pay taxes they aren't demonstrably liable for, which amount to slavery.
15.18 U.S.C. §1589: Forced labor. Being forced to expend one’s personal time responding to frivolous IRS notices and pay taxes on my labor that I am not liable for.
16.Public v. Private Employment: You Really Work for Uncle Sam if you Receive Federal Benefits
17.A federal “public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the federal government:
.an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his ‘individual’ , not his official capacity...” 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession?
“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of
their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”
[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]
18.“U.S. Inc.” is a federal corporation, as defined below:
"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes 'all persons,' ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws
which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. 'No man shall be taken,' 'no man shall be disseised,' without due process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal government, by the amendments to the constitution."
[Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment. The Court's 5-2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose.
It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employer was constitutional. Thus there is no failure to file or to pay tax.
Therefore the IMF/IRS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT, present and passed, have lied to the bloodline American and fraud by trickery have “taxed” employees of small/large corporations/companies and businesses instead of it being a tax on the Corporation/companies and businesses only.
Social Security is an insurance, mandate, not a tax, to the employees thereof.
Whereas the IMF/IRS/et al, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE, aka, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,DBA, A FEDERAL CORPORATION, have counterfeited, conspired and are guilty of R.I.C.O. the current 1040 Tax Bill . You may now use the 1040W form(s) to return all the monies stolen from me dating back to the year I first paid this fraudulent “Individual Tax Return dating back to 1960. You may also refer to identity theft also know as DBA = fraud scheme=personage, by the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: Non-corporation, Bloodline Native American, Indian, Sovereign.
Statutes are NOT Laws, Statutes are rules, regulations or by-laws (terms and conditions) which govern corporations pursuant to their charters which are binding on their Agents, Represntatives (employees) under contract..
Corporate Bylaws,are a set of rules established by a corporation to organize its "internal" management by setting out the rules responsibilities, rights and priviledges in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of it's charter or contract as approved by a legislative body (Our supposed Representatives) In other words, Statutes are laws only binding on Corporate Artificial "Persons" under contract such as Public Servants clothed in the color of law.
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by the original organic Constitution "for" the United States of America.
YOUR GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION OF THE WORD “PERSON”
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: ”This word `person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use
” People are not persons. persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes. A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes. In the United States the people are sovereign over their civil servants
Sovereign or subject, Who's who and what is what? "Who made who, who made You? aint no-body told you? Did People create the Government or did the Government Create People? who are the Sovereigns and who are the Subjects?
It is a Maxim {an established principle} of the Common Law that when an act of Parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a Statute is general, and any prerogative Right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound. The People vs. Herkimer, 15 Am. Dec. 379, 4 Cowen 345 (N.Y. 1825).
The original organic 1789 Constitution "for" these United States of America (and Not the All CAPs DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS CORPORATE CHARTER called CONSTITUTION "OF" Version Written in 1871 by BAR Decivers) is the Supreme law of the land and specifically authorises four Jurisdictions. Satutory is not one of them. Statutes are NOT Law! Two Different and Distinct Nations “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgement in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
--Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.
The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government: yet only his fellow citizens can convict him. They are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. See: 2 Elliot’s Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.
But it cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it did not intent that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free from all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid hardships of particular cases, we must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign powers. See: State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 WX N.W., 262,101, N.W. 74; Cook v. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.
In this state, as well as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme— but the people— and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves: that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do. Not only what then- powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. See: Warning v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P. 93.Common law, by constitution, is law of state. Beech Grove Inv. Co. v. Civil Rights Com’n (1968) 157 N.W.2d 213, 380 Mich. 405.
“Common law” is but the accumulated expressions of various judicial tribunals in their efforts to ascertain what is right and just between individuals in respect to private disputes. Semmens v. Floyd Rice Ford, Inc. (1965) 136 N.W.2d 704,1 Mich.App. 395.
State natives
(EXTRACT FROM THE PUBLIC PRINTING LAW (TITLE 44, U.S.C. § 1105).
Which gives the Government Printing Office, authority to dictate how to refer to the people of the states.
From the 2008 U.S. Government Printing Office style manual via GPO Access)[[chapter 5 spelling (93) page 108]
Nationalities, etc. 5.22. The table on Demonyms in Chapter 17 “Useful Tables” shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
5.23. In designating the natives of the States, the following forms will be used.
Nevadan New Hampshirite New Jerseyan New Mexican New Yorker North Carolinian North Dakotan Ohioan Oklahoman Oregonian Pennsylvanian Rhode Islander South Carolinian South Dakotan Tennessean Texan Utahn Vermonter Virginian Washingtonian West Virginian Wisconsinite Wyomingite Alabamian Alaskan Arizonan Arkansan Californian Coloradan Connecticuter Delawarean Floridian Georgian Hawaiian Idahoan Illinoisan Indianian Iowan Kansan Kentuckian Louisianian Mainer Marylander Massachusettsan Michiganian Minnesotan Mississippian Missourian Montanan Nebraskan
Here these Federal Bank Notes can be corrected by We The People if we get a band wagon going on this and get it done properly as if we can collect even 10% of what is stated here of our worth then that is a staring point for many to get things cleared up for the rest of us, for about 200 Million people having not more than $1,000 at any one time in cold hard cash then that would only be $200 Billion in cash needed in circulation.
Birth Certificates are Federal Bank Notes
Published on November 21, 2016
Dr. Paul Pharms,PhD
“Unbeknownst to most people, the class termed “US citizen” did not exist as a political status until 1866. It was a class and “political status” created for the newly freed slaves and did not apply to the people inhabiting the states of the union who were at that time state Citizens.” ~ Mr. Richard James, McDonald, former law enforcement, California
Now do the math. If indeed 317 million US citizens are worth an average of $700,000 in collateral for the US debt, that would mean the US is worth roughly 222 Trillion dollars.
.......................
House Joint Resolution 192 of JUNE 5, 1933:
Agents of foreign principals
Any agent of a person described in section 611(b)(2) of this title or an entity described in section 611(b)(3) of this title if the agent has engaged in lobbying activities and has registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] in connection with the agent’s representation of such person or entity.
(June 8, 1938, ch. 327, § 3, 52 Stat. 632; Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 521, § 2, 53 Stat. 1245; Apr. 29, 1942, ch. 263, § 1, 56 Stat. 254; Pub. L. 87–366, § 2, Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 784; Pub. L. 89–486, § 3, July 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 246; Pub. L. 104–65, § 9(2), (3), Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 700; Pub. L. 105–166, § 5, Apr. 6, 1998, 112 Stat. 39.) All "public servants," officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals - see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 information how to file and education Whereas : " Failure to file the " Foreign Agents Registration Statement " goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the Court and is a FELONY" pursuant to 18 US 219, 951 -" Failure to file the " Foreign Agents Registration Statement " goes directly to the jurisdiction
and lack of standing to be before the Court and is a FELONY" pursuant to 18 US 219, 951 -
A "public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the city , state or federal government:
“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private Citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private Citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private Citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).” [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]
Public v. Private Employment: You Will Be ILLEGALLY Treated as a Public Officer if you Apply for or Receive Government Benefits
Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
"Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about."
Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986
It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person's civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judges, Oregon judges, Department of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States' security.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;
And any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Title 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified−
Or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.
u.c.c 1-308 formerly 1-207.......reservation of rights....,plus {jut naturale},-{jus soli}...The Great spirit , Mother Earth , The Creator rights for man,earths rights for man....the other that is illegal and unlawful is the {B.A.R} statutes-codes-ordinances that are in repugnance of the primary protocol of your rights or marbury v. madison 5 u.s. 137 {1803}...... " Byars v. United States - 273 US 128 "Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"
We are the the Beneficiaries.......
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Rather, it has long been settled that government may not condition access to even a gratuitous benefit or privilege it bestows upon the sacrifice of a constitutional right. As the Supreme Court explained sixty years ago:
It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.
Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 593-94, 46 S.Ct. 605, 607, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).
Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556, 568 (1st Cir. 1985)
Rather, it has long been settled that government may not condition access to even a gratuitous benefit or privilege it bestows upon the sacrifice of a constitutional right. As the Supreme Court explained sixty years ago:
It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.
Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 593-94, 46 S.Ct. 605, 607, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).
Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556, 568 (1st Cir. 1985)
LAW OF THE LAND: Finally, the Supreme Court
says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign indivi...dual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful
response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905,
Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdictions over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their Courts. A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally. Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again. This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE COUNTY and CITY Elected and public Servant's control.
Buyingy selling crypto (virtual) currency in exchange for Fiat currency in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.? I'm all for getting rid of the Private for profit Federal Reserve Central Banking system Scam, but Cash is king and I don't mean FRN's . learn how to redeem FRN's for lawful money U.S. Notes, There's no interest attatched to U.S. notes so there is no tax liabilty, U.S Notes are tax exempt, U.S. Notes can't be hypothicated by banks all of which are part of the Federal Reserve System which uses the fractional resrve lending scam to create and lend 9 frn's out at interest for evey FRN you deposit in your bank account, and that is the how and why the banksters own this Nation and the American people through the national Debt. Do your research people. and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free. restore our Constitutional Republic Government , Redeem for lawful money per Title 12 Subsedtion 411 Modern Money Mechanics - Rayservers
MODERN MONEY MECHANICS ... Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. .... These reserves on Bank A's books are.
Modern Money Mechanics - Mises Wiki, the global repository of ...
Aug 10, 2017 ... "Modern Money Mechanics" was a booklet published and distributed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, originally written by Dorothy M.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, FIAT MONEY AND ...
topics proliferate in hundreds, if not thousands, of books, newspaper and magazine ..... Bank's booklet Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit ... http://www.rayservers.com/images/ ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf.
Modern Money Mechanics as a Basis of Economic ... - CiteSeerX
Oct 9, 2013 ... Abstract: In this article, the issues of organization of currency circulation in the United States of America are studied as an example ...
Modern Money Mechanics, by The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442
Sheriff No authority to arrest anyone.. Case No. S12C05018 THG they are the court room only
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY
A must Watch ASP https://www.facebook.com/lauryn.gray.100/videos/983400815179654/ Watch Now
Edward M Johnston Has Filed in State of Oregon secretary office including this filed with the senate and house . public Notice,, filed in news media as you can see, Not one of the Elected and Public servants have disagree with the facts this public notice published for three weeks in the newspapers , public notice boards and museums please read https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/72439
olis.leg.state.or.us
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/72439?fbclid=IwAR3aNjuu5D3gT-fnRHTIxi-jp-MwrCRS6OlIQyufKlspsREtXNu2MIIS6kQ ,,, https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/72439
2018 Saturday 5pm ..,, Sunday 5pm Education Knowledge public v private v Home schooling , .. Talking about lawful and legal money v house resolution 192 get it yet http://new.oregontrackers.com/home.html call 641 715 0864 pc 995745 file you rights is on Every Saturday and Sunday Read the information below could educate and aid yourself ,Saturday The Disclaimers talk show by Edward Johnston conversation Constitution lawful bloodline Republican form of Government V Legal British religious mind control Democracy REPORT 5pm oregon time 7pm central 8m East Coast
presented to you by youtube oregontrackers
THE LEGAL NAME IS "ID THEFT" BY LAWYERS/JUDGES
by UNDISCLOSED CONVERSION by use of PATENTS.
***thus - any Elected SHERIFF in this country serving "papers" for Foreclosures is committing TREASON.
- any unelected Police revenue agent in this country serving "papers" for Foreclosures is a Domestic Terrorist.
ITS THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
- and why an Executive Order needs to be issued as a MILITARY INJUNCTION on all THEATERS impersonating government buildings. Trafficking of IP's via SSA Securities.
Dictionary of Law 1893 Christianity. The system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ; the religion founded by Christ. Christianity is said to be part of the common law. "Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and, therefore, to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law." -Taylor's Case, Ventris 293 (1676). "The essential principles of natural religion and of revealed religion are a part of the common law, so that any person reviling or subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law". -Case of Evans, 2 Burn. Ec. L. 185 (1780). The maxim can have no reference to the law of the National government, since the sources of that law are the Constitution, treaties, and acts of Congress. See Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1831). See further Law, Common; Blasphemy; Policy, 2.; Religion
WHEN JUDGE ASKS "WHAT'S YOUR NAME"?
If you're in a PRIVATE/administrative court or court in a federal region such as CA, FL, TX, etc. then giving your name will be considered as a name of a STATUTORY PERSON, consisting of a FIRST and LAST name.
BUT if you're on the land of the Republic or in a Public court of a Republic, then giving your name MUST be considered as name of a MAN, with a GIVEN and FAMILY name, who is protected by a Public/common law.
Agents of foreign principals
Any agent of a person described in section 611(b)(2) of this title or an entity described in section 611(b)(3) of this title if the agent has engaged in lobbying activities and has registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] in connection with the agent’s representation of such person or entity.
(June 8, 1938, ch. 327, § 3, 52 Stat. 632; Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 521, § 2, 53 Stat. 1245; Apr. 29, 1942, ch. 263, § 1, 56 Stat. 254; Pub. L. 87–366, § 2, Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 784; Pub. L. 89–486, § 3, July 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 246; Pub. L. 104–65, § 9(2), (3), Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 700; Pub. L. 105–166, § 5, Apr. 6, 1998, 112 Stat. 39.) All "public servants," officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals - see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 information how to file and education Whereas : " Failure to file the " Foreign Agents Registration Statement " goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the Court and is a FELONY" pursuant to 18 US 219, 951 -" Failure to file the " Foreign Agents Registration Statement " goes directly to the jurisdiction
and lack of standing to be before the Court and is a FELONY" pursuant to 18 US 219, 951 -
“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private Citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private Citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private Citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).” [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]
Hiring Any Attorney waives Constitutional Protections, makes humans wards of court with unsound mind
WHY YOU DON’T WANT AN ATTORNEY
That is a question that each must answer for themselves. However, before making that decision, you might wish to consider the following questions and answers:
4 U.S. Code § 101 - Oath by members of legislatures and ...
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
4 U.S.C. § 101 - U.S. Code Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of ...
codes .findlaw.com › U.S .
Read this complete 4 U.S.C. § 101 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States § 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers on Westlaw
United States Code/Title 4/Chapter 4 - Wikisource, the free ...
§ 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers . Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
U.S. Code: Chapter 4. THE STATES | U.S. Code | US Law | LII ...
§ 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers § 102. Same; by whom administered § 103. Assent to purchase of lands for forts § 104. Tax on motor fuel sold on military or other reservation 11 So in original.
Edward Johnston - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6RKBrWAk ...
4 U.S. Code § 101 - Oath by members of legislatures and officers Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United ...
[USC07] 4 USC Ch. 4: THE STATES - OLRC Home
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title4/chapter4&...
§101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers. Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: "I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
CORPUS DELICTI
"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no
sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right." Sherer v. 96 Cullen 481 F. 945:
Supreme courts ruled "Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime"“In every
prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or
elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.3
"In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of
the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal
agency as its cause. " People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. 105 Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. 106
"As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual
justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate
adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. " 110 People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. 111
“Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not
entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.)
“Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a
complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an
adjudication of the particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 117 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the
question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or
threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335. 120
O'neil v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards :: ::... law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/7/395.html
[Civ. No. 10276. Second Appellate District, Division Two. June 5, 1935.] JOHN J. 126 O'NEIL, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND
VOCATIONAL ... 128
O'Neil v. Crane Co. - 53 Cal. 4th 335, 266 P.3d 987, 135 Cal.... 130 scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/oneil-v-crane-co-34041
O'Neil v. Crane Co. Summary; Opinion; Docket; Briefs; Annotation; Media. Filed 1/
12/12 ... The Navy's Bureau of Ships oversaw the design and construction of
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (full text) :: 491 U.S. 58... 137 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/58/case.html
Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Will v. Michigan Department of State Police. No. 87-1207. Argued December 5, 1988. Decided June 15, 1989.
Edward Johnston - Please call him John kitzharber.... | Facebook
Edward Johnston ... EDWARD MALONE JOHNSTON II. ... John Kitzhaber, Oregon senator house member majority,Ted Ferrioli - certified mail# 7012-2210-0002-3843-5578 ...
Edward Johnston - Hi john,,lets say you are real call ...
John A. Kitzhaber September 22 at 9:20 AM Guiding the Asteroid Sixty-six million years ago an asteroid hit ea ... rth, bringing about the extinction of the dinosaurs, and wiping out roughly seventy-five percent of life on the planet.
COURTS ARE FREE IF YOU DON'T READ AND LEARN THIS YOU WILL END UP PAYING BETWEEN 300 AND 600 DOLLARS TO FILE A COURT CASE!
Plaintiffs, think the easiest way to show the facts, are we the sovereign people, first show what a person is not; in the law. So we have our basis of the claim considering 28 U.S.C. 1914 –(District court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of court) which requires a person, or persons, to pay a filing fee. Since a person, or persons, must pay the filing fee; one should denote what a person, is according to law in the second to properly show both sides of the coin. Starting with the Supreme Court decisions which denote the sovereign American people are not a person. Please see the following
" 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest.
[Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]
Supreme Court of the United States 1795
a. “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and,
b. “the contracts between them” involve U.S. Citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities:
c. “Therefore, the U.S. Citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity””, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
Statutes are NOT Laws, Statutes are rules, regulations or by-laws (terms and conditions) which govern corporations pursuant to their charters which are binding on their Agents, Represntatives (employees) under contract..
Corporate Bylaws,are a set of rules established by a corporation to organize its "internal" management by setting out the rules responsibilities, rights and priviledges in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of it's charter or contract as approved by a legislative body (Our supposed Representatives) In other words, Statutes are laws only binding on Corporate Artificial "Persons" under contract such as Public Servants clothed in the color of law.
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by the original organic Constitution "for" the United States of America.
YOUR GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION OF THE WORD “PERSON”
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: ”This word `person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use
” People are not persons. persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes. A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes. In the United States the people are sovereign over their civil servants
Sovereign or subject, Who's who and what is what? "Who made who, who made You? aint no-body told you? Did People create the Government or did the Government Create People? who are the Sovereigns and who are the Subjects?
It is a Maxim {an established principle} of the Common Law that when an act of Parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a Statute is general, and any prerogative Right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound. The People vs. Herkimer, 15 Am. Dec. 379, 4 Cowen 345 (N.Y. 1825).
Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved UCC I 207 . 308
Lawful Bloodline Native American Confidentiality Notice:
I am not an attorney, medical professional or financial adviser and all the exchanges contained in this email are for personal use only. This private email message, including any attachment[s] is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient[s] and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government[s] , et. al.,and/or Third Party[ies] working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email[s] and collecting these communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review,Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me, Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights & Reserved Rights. It is my hope that the things within this email are a blessing unto every reader without exception, for I desire peaceful co-existence with ALL!
*Confidentiality Notice. *The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this
“Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for
the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential
and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended
recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly
proscribes their Message review, dissemination,
also look at http://new.oregontrackers.com/home.html
good video !!! ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ v HIMSELF !!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rewoG
More Education Information on Lawful Bloodline Native American http://new.oregontrackers.com
Notice: All Rights Reserved. Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited. This Public email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights,Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights Notice. *The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this “Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized lawful bloodline Americans aka lawful Americans carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch. Anything stated in this email may be limited in the content and is not to be taken out of context.**Wireless Copyright Notice**. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator’s full written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message.Originator acknowledges others’ copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442
Replies