Understanding How Admiralty And Common Law Apply To You https://youtube/watch?v=yZjhM385kBs Remove Your Property From The Tax Roll Part 1 Steve joins Bo & Rocko and explains how to Remove Your Property From The Tax Roll. Part 1 of 7.... Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax - YouTube youtube/watch?v=Vg1nYbch4TQ Cached The misrepresentation and misapplication of the United States federal income tax constitutes the largest acquisition of wealth by way of deception in ... .Play Video Outgoing IRS Chief Taxes are Voluntary - YouTube youtube/watch?v=qcpEQXFAxe4 Cached... All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and must NOT create any de facto laws which counter the Constitution: The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law containing income taxes, Bills, 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 grounds that officials were acting within the scope of their 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. See; The CAFR Swindle- The Biggest Game In Town https://youtube/watch?v=1pRPBKJQnyU Taxes are no longer necessary. This video exposes a deliberate and massive swindle that is perpetrated by every government agency from your local school district. 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. 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. 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 Defendants can be held in actions under 42 USC 1983, even,This includes Elected and public employees,Effective January 1, 2013, employees of Oregon higher education institutions are considered by law to be subject mandatory reporters of child abuse.oregon.gov/dhs/abuse/pages/mr_employees.aspx though they did not act willfully. Even though they did not have a specific intent to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right, such defendants can be held to civil responsibility. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.s. 167, 1961.24.215-219, the assaults on this man or reported again An conspiracy is actionable under 42 USC 1985, when there has been an actual of denial of due process.(Civil Rights) Jennings v. Nester (1954, Ca. 7 Ill.) 217, F.2d 153, CERT DEN 349 U.S. 958, 99 L.Ed. 1281, 75 S.ct. 888.Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425. When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18. [p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).43.359-365 Purpose: Generally, this section further protects civil action for deprivation of rights protects constitutional rights from invasion by persons acting under state or federal authority. (Civil Rights) Weise v. Reisner, DC Wis. 1970, 318 F.Sup. 580, quoted from U.S.C.A. 1972 pocketpart, P. 40 Title 42, Sec. 1983, Note Paragraph 8,,,,,. Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was precisely the proposition upon which 42 USC section 1983 was enacted. Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional right on the strength of 18 USC Section 241- 242. (Civil Rights) (Imbler vs Pachtman, U.S. 47 L.Ed. 2nd 128, 96 S.Ct.) 44.367-374 This section was passed to enforce U.S.C.A. Constitution Amendment 14 and to protect form interference the rights secured thereby, as well as other constitutional rights; it is directed against conspiracies of private persons; and there is no requirement that conspiracy be under color of law. (Civil Rights) U.S.C.A. 1972 Pocket P. 1675, Title 42, Sec. 1995, Note 28.242-248 The Seventh Circuit of Appeals has held that a public official does not have immunity simply because he operates in a discretionary situation. It indicated that public servants are to be held liable when they abused their discretion or acted in a way that is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. (Civil Rights) Littleton v. Berbling (1972, Ca. 7 Ill.), 468 F.2d 389.36.304-308 Governmental immunity is not defense in suits brought under this section making liable every person who under color or state law deprives another person of his civil rights. Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me., 1970, 309 F.Sup. 95.18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 241-242- Crimes and Criminal ...law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 Cached ... 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; .. Common-Law Grand-Juries.Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Attorney General... He is the chief law officer of the federal and state governments with the duty of representing the sovereign, national or state. Johnson v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Meredith, 291 Ky. 829, 165 S.W.2d 820, 826. Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby. (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256) ...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170). Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved: State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991). I have a right to question and challenge any Publicly owned taxing activities by Any Public court, their Elected and public employee government,,non-for profits and any affiliates agency as to their validity and legal standing: Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority. The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947) The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906): The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted --Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. 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. 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. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. 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. People v.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. 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. 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. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. 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. People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. “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, 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. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. “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, 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. The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the fruit. The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed... and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat... it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit. Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.} The Clearfield Doctrine,,,scribd/doc/96926258/The-Clearfield-Doctrine Clearfield Doctrine proves when governments descend to the corporate level they CEASE to be governmental entities.Clearfield DoctrineIt is well settled that an officer must be either elected, appointed or commissioned. Employees cannot be made officers “by virtueof their employment.” Even if they could, I.C. 59 -703 (9) states, “Public office means any position in which the normal and usual duties are conducted on behalf of a governmental entity.”
Posted on: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:54:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015