And The Beat Goes On!!
No matter what instrument we put on the street, the question remains; "Where is the ENFORCEMENT?"
We've been tricked & deceived into believing, that those with the guns have the power, yet, in game theory, when one is deprived of their resources to buy the guns & bullets, a.k.a. "MONEY," it's game over!
Isn't it time to expose, and dissolve the United States Corporation, Inc., the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the courts, BAR, and all those predatory vermin who created these MONOPOLIES?
I give you 15 USC #1 & #2, which state;
“Every contract (Oaths of Office, etc.), combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person (corporate employee, agent, contractor)-(individual), or corporation) who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the (this, the People's) court (Public Opinion).”
“Every person (individual) who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person (individual) or persons (individuals), to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony (they must, then, prove their innocence), and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the (this, the People's) court (Public Opinion).”
The Maxims of Contract Law used to enforce this "Code," are 1. ONLY THOSE CORPORATE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND CONTRACTORS, OF THOSE CREATING & LEGISLATING THESE CODES (ie; CORPORATE CHARTERS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURES ACT, etc.), ARE OBLIGATED TO OBEY THEM!.........2. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED, OR GIVEN YOUR INFORMED & FREE WILLED-CONSENT TO BE APART OF THEIR CONTRACT, YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT, 3. NOR ARE YOU OBLIGATED TO THEIR CONTRACT, IE; US CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, NORTHWEST ORDINANCE, ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, STATE CONSTITUTIONS, THE NATIONAL DEBT, TRIBUTES, TAXES, MORTGAGES, FORECLOSURES, OR A RE-PUBLIC (RE-CROWNING) OF ANY KIND.
Withdrawing, or Rescinding your Consent, as in STOP PAYING YOUR MORTGAGES, STOP PAYING YOUR TAXES, STOP REGISTERING TO VOTE IN RIGGED ELECTIONS, STOP VOTING FOR THEIR CORPORATE LEADERSHIP, STOP SHOWING UP TO THEIR PHONY & FRAUDULENT COURTS, and STOP BEING STUPID & IRRESPONSIBLE SHEEPLE!............AND, STOP BEING VICTIMS!!
This, along with being a responsible, intelligent & informed individual, then, is the KEY to dissolving all one-sided contracts which are of no benefit to you, or those gratuitous bailments you were coerced, intimidated, forced, or deceived into signing without your knowledge, and against your free will!!
THE BEST PREDATOR REPELLENT EVER CREATED, IS TO MAKE YOUR STAND ON SOLID GROUND, AND TO JUST SAY "NO!"
For further instructions on how to lawfully dissolve these predatory corporations, and hold the "individual" perpetrators accountable.
4 Attachments
Preview attachment MANUAL FOR REVOKING CORPORATE CHARTERS.pdf
 MANUAL FOR REVOKING CORPORATE CHARTERS.pdf
CORPORATE DUNS NUMBERS.pdf
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE-ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION-1933.pdf
US Wide Template-SALVAGE LIEN 04:10:2015.pdf
|
The Black Fly Brigade Lives On!
Replies
The question remains:
HOW MUCH FRAUD IS LEGAL OR LAWFUL?
Answer: 9
Statutes,acts,ordinances and codes ARE NOT laws, they are legislative “RULES” of a society. Legislative rules of a society are given force through law. Law proceed rules.
Maxim of law: Government can only control what it creates. (The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.)
Not Legal Advice
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)
U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929):
“The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
“The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court’s in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70:
“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 255:
“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 257:
“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 258:
“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 260:
“Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”
Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)
Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”
“Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability”
(When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)
Title 18 sect 2381 – Capitol Felony Treason:
“In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.”
Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:
“If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.”
ENTIRE FAMILY ARRESTED
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dU0bru8SJdE&autoplay=1
There is no Oath of Office to defend the Constitution.
There is no 4th Amendment.
There is no accountability for judges, police, departments, or agencies.
May vee zee your papers pleaze?
Notice the checkpoint woman, she KNEW what words NOT to say. She refused to say them or define them. She danced around the legal terms. Is it obvious that she was trained how NOT to incriminate herself? Doesn't matter, she did. Ignorance of the law is no defense. So I've heard!
As for the police. Similar dialog. They know exactly what they are doing. "So you're a Constitutionalist! We've seen this before..."! So this has been done before and successfully tested? Who is training these anti-American jackboots? What civilization is this happening in?
I'm sorry, I cannot comprehend how any of these people can face their families and sleep at night. These are cold zombies that look like humans. Anyone, please explain how we can tell the good guys from the bad guys? The uniform and badges are not compelling evidense any longer.
For a better understanding of the wordplay that was used, the DHS has defined anyone self-described as a Constitutionalist or asserts any Constitutional Rights is a potential domesticated terrier. That's their probable cause.
We can't tell what happened to I this family in court. We have other threads on how similar Oaths are violated there.
Excellent video.
Good example of a COMPLETE violation of rights, but I would like to point out that
to ask only two questions at such a stop:
That's it. No other interaction is required or will do you any good. Period! If they answer "no" to the first question and "no" to the second, then they have just contradicted themselves because if you're not free to go, then by definition, you are under arrest or detainment. Once this has been established then they are easily identified as the enemy of the Constitution and any further interaction is rendered useless. Eddy gives three pieces of advice when faced with this predicament:
Shut up, shut up again, then shut up some more. Invoke your right NOT to speak and to have council for your defense. Nothing more, except SHUT UP!
Never answer ANY of their questions. If you need more on this subject ,CLICK HERE!
Any way to post. I try to go to link and Google says something about account and cat go to link. Say temporary. I doubt it.