Bruce L McCrum and Ed https://youtube/watch?v=vTJy1JdRrsI&feature=youtu.be Affidavit Public Notice 1-308 All Rights Reserved: Not for Profiteering by other entities. “Within the Admiralty” “Within the Admiralty” Admiralty Extension Act Title 46 U.S.A. Appendix chapter 19-A § 740 1. a matter must be expressed to be resolved. 2. in Commerce Truth is sovereignty. 3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. 4. An un-rebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in commerce. 5. An un-rebutted Affidavit becomes the Judgment in Commerce. Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce themFederal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as UNALIENABLE. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers.” (Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S. E. 2nd. 247.) Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent … Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Legislature passed motor vehicle laws regulating drivers for hire and has never expanded them beyond that subject class, per Dexter Johnsons own statement. Yet police routinely enforce the Vehicle Code against nonbusiness automobile users. Eighteen Sheriffs have explicitly said so. The reason for the mis-enforcement is that the police are relying on the ORS, which does not reflect the legislative intent that only business vehicles are to be regulated. The result is a sort of extortion, whereby millions of dollars are being collected wrongfully from Oregon citizens. In addition, road upkeep costs are being shifted from trucking companies onto the general public. This mis-enforcement can be stopped easily, if Legislative Counsel Dexter Johnson revises the Oregon Vehicle Code to clarify that it is a business regulation applicable only to vehicles used for compensation or profit. Restore Republican Form of Government to Oregon -------------------------------- Instead of enforcing the laws passed by the Legislature, Oregon police enforce the O.R.S. written by Legislative Counsel Dexter Johnson and earlier occupants of that office. Any mismatch between the Acts and the O.R.S. constitutes a failure to have a Republican Form of Government, in which the Peoples representatives write the laws that are enforced. Make good on the promise of the Constitution: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government[.] (Article IV, Clause 4) Please see video for more information and details, https://youtube/watch?v=L1WW4PwNV5w Carl Miller - Right to travel without a license pl https://youtube/watch?v=cV8gRA-JYeg The CAFR Swindle - The Biggest Game In Town youtube/watch?v=1pRPBKJQnyU posted by Edward Johnston,, anti-fraud activities, rating, or underwriting, 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(6); to notify owners of towed or impounded vehicles, 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(7); by licensed private investigative agencies or security services for permitted purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(8); for use by employers to verify information relating to a holder of a commercial driver’s license, 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(9) (1994 & Supp. III 1997); and for use in connection with private tollways, 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(10). In addition, personal information in motor vehicle re- cords may be disclosed in certain circumstances for bulk distribution for surveys, marketing, or solicitation, but only if individuals are provided an opportunity, in a clear and conspicuous manner, to block such use of information pertaining to them. 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(12). Thus, disclosure of motor vehicle information about an individual for direct-marketing purposes is prohibited unless (a) the individual is provided the opportunity, under Section 2721(b)(11), to block general disclosure of his personal information, and declines that opportunity, or (b) the individual is given the opportunity to block use of his personal information for direct marketing specifically, and declines that opportunity. 4 b. The DPPA also regulates the resale and redis- closure of motor vehicle information by private persons who have obtained that information from a DMV. See 18 U.S.C. 2721(c) (1994 & Supp. III 1997). The DPPA’s restrictions on resale and redisclosure by private 4 The DPPA also provides that personal information in motor vehicle records “shall be disclosed” for certain specific purposes pursuant to other federal statutes. 18 U.S.C. 2721(b) (1994 & Supp. III 1997). As we explain below (pp. 28-29 n.12, infra ), that provision does not impose any new disclosure requirements, but rather makes clear that the DPPA does not bar disclosures other- wise required by federal law. Janet Reno Right To Travel Brief 98-1464.pdf https://dropbox/…/Janet%20Reno%20Right%20To%20Trave… https://drop All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and Shall NOT create any defacto 1871 1933 banking act laws which counter the Constitution: The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law... containing unlawful income taxes, senate and house Bills ones birth certificate , statutes and codes with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax. Herein...Ohios Doctrine of Governmental Immunity was held unconstitutional and others to numerous to mention. (Civil Rights) (Krause vs Ohio, app 2d 1 L.N.W. 2d 321 1971.) Reich vs State Highway Dept. 336, Mich 617: 194 N.W. 2d 700 197Employees of a city or state are not immune from suit under statute relating civil rights for deprivations of rights on ground that officials were acting within the scope of their ground that officials were acting within the Scope of their responsibilities of performing a discretionary act. (Bunch vs Barnett 376 F.Sup. 23.)Title 28 Section 1391, this section makes it possible to bring actions against government officials and agencies in district court outside D.C. (Civil Rights) (Norton vs Mcshane 14 L.Ed. 2d 274.)A suit in detinue or replevin in personam should lie to gain possession of property seized by the state. (Civil Rights) Stephen, Pleading (3rd Am ed) p. 47, 52, 69, 74; Ames Lectures on legal history, p. 64, 71; Wilkins v. Despard, 5 Term Rep- 112; Roberts v. Withered, % Mod. 193, 12 Mod. 92. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby... The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331,The oath of office taken by an individual under section 3331 of this title shall be delivered by him to, and preserved by, the House of Congress, agency, or court to ..Sec. 3331-3333. Oath of office - Subchapter II - Oath of Office - U.S. Code - Title 5: Government Organization and Employees - January 01, 2011 - Order: 2 - 19265805 ...To protect the people from their elected and public employees,,Many of our people seem to believe that their state government has jurisdiction to stop the common law Grand Juries. However,the state government only has authority over statutory (ie. State) law, not common law. The common law of England was used to establish the U.S. Constitution, so it existed before it and, thus, it is superior to it. The common law is time immemorial. The state government did not create the common law, so it has no authority to abolish it or control it, unless we allow ourselves to be tricked to putting common law under statutory law, where its their house, their rules. However, if we operate outside the statutory rules by invoking common law, no state government has the authority or jurisdiction to dictate, control or abolish what we do. They only have authority to enforce our decisions. If the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the authority of the common law Grand Jury (U.S. v. Williams), why would the state have authority to counter that opinion? The common law is superior to all statutory law, and we must only invoke it in the right way to have superior standing. We need to stop putting the common law and the Grand Juries underneath their inferior statutory laws. The people (singular AND plural) have the ultimate authority!18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal … law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; ... The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957. Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:An unconstitutional law states and codes cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983). The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute and codes, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 20.181-192United States Code: Title 28a,Rule 5.1. Constitutional ... law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a... Cached42 USC 1986 provides: 42 USC 1986 provides: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section (1985 of Title 42) are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of same, neglects or refuses so to do, 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 act, neglect, or refusal, may be joined as defendants in the action. (Civil Rights)Mandatory Reporting laws Appliers Elected and public employees and commercial contractors
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:11:53 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015