Bratton, Bill. My U Bounty is straight legal, dead or alive: https://youtube/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE All of ours, every one of you: Re: City-Police State Armed Forces Occupying This Federal District (FOIA) Bar Scalps, I write to inquire about the state’s plan to complying with the following directive: No County-State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … keep Troops … in time of Peace, enter into any … Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. I previously inquired whether you have written “consent of D.C. Congress” to keep your city armies, which you call “Police and Sheriffs.” You have remained silent on this simple topic, from which I conclude you have no such legitimate written consent. I’ve previously asked whether this state has “actually been invaded” by some foreign power thus relinquishing your avowed duty to obtain D.C. consent to keep armed state forces in this and all other federal districts. You have remained silent on this simple question as well. I’ve previously asked whether this city state is in imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” in securing D.C. consent to keep city-state armed forces? I’ve also asked, “If this state is operating under the ‘imminent Danger’ exception, what ‘imminent foreign Danger exists that is not already being handled by the U.S. Military?” You remain silent on this salient point. Many observe daily that your city-states, via your police state armies’ deeds, have been deployed to regulate Federal Citizens under your own rule of law. They force the following invasive measures, e.g.: curfews, random check-points, and daily takings of federal privileges and immunities from victimless hunts, for ticket money. It engages local “wars” against them for things like growing, selling and consuming agricultural product George Washington grew. I kindly ask when your city-states plan on withdrawing their local armed forces in this and all other federal districts and uniting under the “supremacy clause” - as you avow you have. Thank you for your courtesy, non-evasive explanation. See attached reminders. Kind regards,
Posted on: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:56:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015