Article 1, section 9 of 1776 Constitution : No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain law and order on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States. Dont Talk to Police https://youtube/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc youtube The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act. INCOME TAX FRAUD https://youtube/watch?v=3eQZoXAU7X0 Remove Your Property From The Tax Roll Part 1 https://youtube/watch?v=jFkULHuyl50 https://youtube/watch?v=jFkULHuyl50 Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax https://youtube/watch?v=Vg1nYbch4TQ ,It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation Called Elected and public employees and arrest commercial 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.)sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public gunssavelives.net/.../supreme-court-ruling-police.../ 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. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256,,,,,,,,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. Lawful,,Due proses is Constitutional the private American side 1866 civil rights act to protect lawful Americans from there Elected and public Employees,,Judicial proses Fraud and treasonous Fraud appone the Court, Constitutional lawfulness court proceeding of a jury of 12, jury nullification,,,, Judicial proses Democracy Courts is the defato of 1871, By the great weight of authority it is acknowledged that generally public officials are not immune from suit when they allegedly violate the civil rights of citizens, and that a public officials defense of immunity is to be sparingly applied in these kinds of cases. James v. Ogilvie, 1970, DC Ill., 310 F. Sup. 661, 663. Title 18 241-242 ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED ConspiracyWatch> ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES Judicial proses Democracy Courts is the defato of 1871, NON--disclosure of a supposed contract stipulation makes its presumptions fraudulent, and fraud vitiates a contract, ab initio, per court ruling. All so-called US citizens should be aware that the 14th amendment is null and void, being never ratified by the states in 1868 (in spite of lies to the contrary). Case cites affirm the 14th amendment is a lie, and its lie is also presented in six copious pages in the Congressional Record, of July 13, 1967, and never rebutted. All so-called US citizens should withdraw their voter registrations, as their votes absolutely dont count; the vote having been manipulated by those voting machines earlier supplied by Diebold, which were not designed to give an accurate vote count... in fact, far from it. Congressional Record -- House June 13, 1967 H7161 constitutionalconcepts.org/rarick.pdf Congressional Record -- House June 13, 1967 H7161 THE 14TH constitutionalconcepts.org/rarick.pdf The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain law and order on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act. 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.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. Public 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 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, Copyright © 2014 by originator**. All Rights Reserved. Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved UCC1-308
Posted on: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:36:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015