The two faces of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy

mitch102213-bw

Thomas Mitchell

Not since Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde shared the same body has one man been seen in such startlingly contrasting lights.

That man is Cliven Bundy, the Bunkerville rancher whose armed supporters two years ago faced down federal land agents until they relented and released his impounded cattle. He and 18 others, including four of his sons, are now in jail facing a litany of charges growing out of that confrontation — including obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers.

To read the prosecutor’s motion asking that Bundy be jailed without bail until his as-yet-unscheduled trial, you’d think he is evil incarnate bent on loosing havoc and destruction upon the land. A judge agreed.

To read his attorney’s motion asking that he be released pending trial, you’d think he is eligible for sainthood. The motion has yet to be heard.

“Bundy is lawless and violent. He does not recognize federal courts — claiming they are illegitimate — does not recognize federal law, refuses to obey federal court orders, has already used force and violence against federal law enforcement officers while they were enforcing federal court orders, nearly causing catastrophic loss of life or injury to others,” prosecutors argue, adding, “In fact, all the evidence suggests that Bundy will continue to act lawlessly, will not abide by court orders, and will use violence to ensure that federal laws are not enforced as to him.”

But attorney Joel Hansen calls Bundy a political prisoner in the same vein as South African anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela.

“The government is trying Cliven Bundy in these motions, rather than before a jury of his peers. The government is holding Mr. Bundy in solitary confinement, a man who has never hurt a fly,” Hansen writes. “The government seems to be afraid that it might lose in a jury trial, so it wants to keep him in prison, in solitary confinement, as long as it can, because he, like Nelson Mandela, is a political prisoner…. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution allowing the federal government to hold political prisoners without a trial. Nothing.”

Hansen based his political prisoner allegations on the fact Bundy is accused by the government of having “strong anti-federal government views” and that his views are not “principled.”

“Mr. Bundy, in studying the US Constitution, found in the First Amendment that he had freedom of speech and that the government can’t take that away,” Hansen blusters. “And where in all of Anglo-American or Constitutional law is it held that someone’s views must, in the government’s opinion, be ‘principled?’ Are we now in a fascist state where one’s opinions must be, in the opinion of the government, ‘principled?’ This is dangerous talk, to say the least.”

Hansen states that under the Bail Reform Act the government must prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that Bundy poses a danger to the community or it must prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that he is a flight risk — noting that Bundy has not gone anywhere for two years.

He also recalls that Bundy was never at the “scene of any confrontation, never brandished a weapon, was never armed with any firearm, never directed anyone to assault a federal officer, and never assaulted anyone or committed any battery in his life.”

That contrasts somewhat with what prosecutors report Bundy said in an online interview shortly after the armed standoff.

“Bundy expressed dismay that the BLM officers were allowed to leave with their weapons on April 12: ‘we haven’t won the war, we’ve just won one chapter of it, ’” the detention motion states. “Bundy’s characterization of the assault as part of a larger ‘war’ makes clear that his efforts to thwart and interfere with BLM law enforcement officers would carry on.”

The government says that “Bundy is a danger to the community and poses a risk of non-appearance. Bundy cannot overcome the presumption that he should be detained and no conditions or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others or his appearance at future proceedings,” even though Bundy’s attorney says he would agree to any travel, firearm or GPS tracking restrictions the government would impose in return for being set free.

“Cliven Bundy is about as likely to hurt someone or to flee Nevada as a desert tortoise,” Hansen attests. “It just isn’t going to happen.”

Who is Cliven Bundy? Depends on who you ask.

Sign up for Email Updates

Get the latest news, alerts, and more from the Record straight to your inbox.

Comments

  1. Kelly Gneiting says:

    He’s a good, lawful man who adhere’s to the Constitution. Compared to that document, our laws have become grossly corrupt. Patriots KNOW the law, AND have the courage to do what Cliven Bundy has done, in the face of Big Brother, an army of compromisers and power opportunists, with virtually unlimited funds.

  2. HDLadee says:

    Good man doing what any decent father and husband would do, protecting his family’s livelihood from thugs! Just because they’re feds doesn’t diminish their thuggish behavior stealing land, killing cattle and holding the family at gunpoint!

    • Roxann Van Winkle Callahan says:

      Well said. He, nor non of his family had weapons. It was because of the overbearing government power with snipers all around their ranch holding them at “bay” while they ran and shot their cattle to death and dug holes in the desert to bury them, and tore up and hauled out their watering equipment, that people came to film, take pictures and protect them. The government agents were the ones who who assaulted and assigned a First Amendment area.

  3. plainsite says:

    I have met Cliven Bundy. He is a hugger and a family man. He desires peace and goodwill. The portrait the government paints of him is so absurd as to shock the conscience. But, he is not required to just rollowver in the face of federal overreach and abuse. No, the law does require him to simply submit. If that were the case, then Martin Luther King is a terrorist for resisting the laws of the land, that were in force at that time. The law of the land is only as good as the morality behind it.

  4. oregontrackers says:

    12usc95a(2) …and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

  5. oregontrackers says:

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth 1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–432, § 3, struck out “(a)” before “The following” and redesignated pars. (1) to (7) as (a) to (g), respectively. U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933 FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word “without” to citizens “within” the United States To cover the debt in 1933 and future debt, the corporate government determined and established the value of the future labor of each incorporated individual in its jurisdiction to be $630,000. A bond of $630,000 is set on each Certificate of Live Birth. The certificates are bundled together into sets and then placed as securities on the open market. These certificates are then purchased by the Federal Reserve and/or foreign bankers. The purchaser is the “holder” of “Title.” This process made each and every person in this jurisdiction a bond servant. U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified

  6. oregontrackers says:

    Always with respect PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY
    Notice:We are
    not Attorney or lawyers if you would like legal Advice contact a lawyer
    or Attorney even tho their is no such thing Attorney’s License? Ain’t No
    Such Thing! –
    Freedom…www.freedom-school.com/law/attorney-license–no-such…

    Attorney’s License? Ain’t No Such Thing! ATTORNEY’S LICENSE??? AIN’T NO SUCH THING!!! Bigger text (+) … ALL LAWYERS AND LAWYER

    It
    is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of
    this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and
    recognized American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired
    public servant(s), Children’s Protection Services, Police, Sheriff’s,
    Martials, CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County
    Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations,
    Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law,
    Corporations, LLC’s, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers, Unions, et
    al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the 1776
    Constitution for the United States of America, to all matters herein
    related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other
    professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of
    office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans’
    right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that ‘GOD’ promised
    mine and your bloodline of this United States of America for all mankind
    thereof.Please read read title 18 all of it

    Citizens(Federal) and Persons vs. People

    CITIZENS.
    Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated
    capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a
    government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection
    of their individual as well as collective rights.—U.S. v Cruikshank,
    92 U.S. 542—

    If one is established as a “people”, individually
    or collectively, then one is entitled to all the rights, which formerly
    belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9
    (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec.
    3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

    A
    people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not
    damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another
    individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa,
    40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
    (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he
    does not trespass.

    Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state
    are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his
    prerogative……….2. Citizens – United States citizenship does not
    entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship.
    Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges
    and immunities of citizen of the state,since privileges and immunities
    of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G.
    S.C.C. 5-20-1927

    “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment
    to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to
    be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his
    state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431
    p.4

    “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
    States, ratified[1] in 1868, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE
    FIRST TIME a [federal] citizenship of the United States, AS DISTINCT
    FROM THAT OF THE STATES…”
    Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

    [1]
    This is a BOLD LIE, it was never ratified per Article V of the U.S.
    Constitution (Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646
    and Dyett v Turner (1968) are VERY CLEAR about this)

    Whereas http://www.abodia.com/t/sovereign/index.htm
    Lisa Foster, director of the Office for Access to Justice (OAJ), , Director webmaster@usdoj.gov
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_department_warns_local_courts_about_illegal_enforcement_of_fees_and

    Notice:
    All Rights Reserved. Permission to distribute for non-commercial
    purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a
    link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the
    written permission of the author is prohibited. This Public email
    message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the
    intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential
    Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities,
    Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies),
    International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s),
    or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion
    by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of
    spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive
    Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use,
    Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My
    Rights,Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does
    not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights
    or Reserved Rights 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 Without Prejudice
    and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver
    of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights
    U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO
    PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

  7. oregontrackers says:

    Lisa Foster, director of the Office for Access to Justice (OAJ), , Director webmaster@usdoj.gov

    DoJ Warns Judges: You Better Stop Jailing People For Not Paying Fines https://occupycorporatism.com/doj-warns-judges-better-stop-jailing-people-not-paying-fines/

    Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved U<l:CI-306-308- I 207of State Sovereignty Notice:
    We the People of the forty eight union now Fifty
    United States of America Republic Elected and public servant's oversights
    Requesting Criminal Investigation misuse of public Funding AKA
    birth certificate bond us on new york stock exchange
    All types of Taxes collected from Lawfully American Publicly Owned as we are Educated on in public schools
    Date March Fourth twenty thousand and sixteenth the year

    edward- malone=johnston
    Oregon territory
    DMM602@1.3(e)2 Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP CODE) not required.

    federal kidnapping law under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 does not divide
    kidnapping into degrees. However both Nevada and federal courts levy
    very harsh punishments for kidanpping, including a possible life
    sentence. Read more about federal kidnapping law in Nevada in our
    article on federal kidnapping law in Nevada.

    Us
    J16th American Juristprudence, Second Edition, Section 177 states it best:
    16th American Juris Prudence Section 177
    The
    State did not give the Citizen his rights and thus cannot take them
    away as it chooses. The State did not establish the settled maxims and
    procedures by which a citizen must be dealt with, and thus cannot
    abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative
    enactments do not constitute the law of the land, but must conform to
    it.

    From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
    “The
    general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing
    the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S.
    Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be
    valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution
    and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly
    stated as follows:

    There are no "emergency powers" granted
    to Congress. There is no basis for the Trading With the Enemy Act ever
    being applied against us nor against any "vessel" in commerce named
    after us. There is no excuse for pretending that all the Americans
    magically "volunteered" to be considered British Subjects, either.

    On
    April 14, 1802, the actual United States in Congress Assembled passed
    United States Statute-at-Large 2, 153, Chapter 28, Subsection 1. The
    actual government of, for, and by the people clearly defined the
    necessary process for any American to ever become a United States
    Citizen—that is, a British Subject merely residing on the land of the
    United States— a process requiring multiple notices and conscious acts
    by consenting adults confirmed by public officials and on the public
    record over a period of two years — not an undisclosed "implied"
    contract foisted off under conditions of deceit upon babies in their
    cradles and women recovering from childbirth.

    The general
    rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and
    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.
    As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if
    it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it
    purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
    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. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any
    existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the
    fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound
    to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce
    it.”Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation
    of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his,or her, own
    actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4
    of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office.

    It is the
    duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this
    Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and recognized
    American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired public
    servant(s), Children's Protection Services, Police, Sheriff's, Martials,
    CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County
    Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations,
    Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law,
    Corporations,

    LLC's, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers,
    Unions, et al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the
    1776 Constitution for the united States of America, to all matters
    herein related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other
    professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of
    office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans'
    right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the
    Greatspirit 'GOD' promised mine and your bloodline of this united States
    of America for all mankind thereof.

    Whereas :
    Remember as
    well merely being born within the territorial boundaries of the United
    States of America does not make such an inhabitant/visitor a Citizen of
    the United States of America subject to the Fourteenth Amendment,[XIV],
    Amendment … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884).

    House Joint Resolution 192, 1933 – ****Redemption – tribe.net tribes.tribe.net/redemption101/thread/07f05122-0090-408b
    House
    Joint Resolution 192 … this Article does not contain an absolute
    prohibition against the States making something else a tender in
    transfer of debt. HJR-192 …

    .Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED…www.youhavetheright.com/tour3
    Background-
    1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. … passed House Joint
    Resolution 192 which served … impossible as notes of debt do not pay
    for anything …

    Note Added: The unlawful color of Law actions of
    any public servant are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 thus CORPORATE
    POLICY does not apply to the children, women and the men of these union
    States whereas the crimes committed were during time of engagement as
    an employee or Corporate Officer thereof, past and present, and all
    corporate policy is null and void, ab inito, to all union states and
    their lawful residents and totally fail to comply with the Supreme Law
    of the Land thereof. All paperwork must be in compliance to this Supreme
    Law of the Land or it is null and void on face ab inito less it stand
    in Treason against the Constitution therof.

    "If money is wanted
    by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain
    it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure
    relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public
    tranquility." Journals of the Continental Congress. 26 October,
    1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13."Government immunity violates the common
    law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy for an injury done to his
    person or property." (Civil Rights) (Firemens Ins Co of Newark, N.J. vs
    Washington County. 2 Wisc 2d 214; 85 N.W.2d 840 1957.) CORPS and
    Engineers AKA Corporation and company's LLC , City county states
    Federal 501 C-3-9s are Black ink On White Paper the term AKA Black ans
    White, Mostly the have no Blood or bloodline Soul or heart beat.Thereof.
    Only CORPS And Including corporation Can Be liable of Suit under Color
    of Law Fraud Scam.
    CORPS AKA Corporation Company's LLC City county states Federal are DEAD entity And only Exit in the minds of Men

    As
    to the Civil War Grace the Lawful bloodline American's Elected and
    public servants to honor thy OATH of Services Know as the 1776 1778
    Ratified Constitution Law of Theseus Forty eight now fifty union States
    of Constitution oath of public servitude

    All government officials
    and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the
    Constitution and must NOT create any defacto 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…Ohio's 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 700 197"Employees 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.

    Whereas :
    Magna Carta – USHistory.org
    http://www.ushistory.org/documents/magnacarta.htm
    Magna
    Carta, in a collection of Historic Documents of America. … The term "
    Magna Carta" means "Great Charter." 1215. JOHN, by the grace of God
    King of England… Treaty of 1213 – The Beginning of the Lie | Truth…
    http://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/treaty-1213-beginning-lie
    Jun
    28, 2009 … The Vatican didn't like that because the King owed a lot
    of pounds to the Vatican. … The contract (treaty of 1213) was between
    two parties.

    The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man's
    hand, so people couldn't pass their land on to the church or anyone
    else without the King's = no allodial title = fraudulent permission,
    (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he
    controlled = False Claim = The Vatican didn't like that because the King
    owed a lot of pounds of Gold and Silver to the Vatican for loans the
    king took to wage war on innocent woman, man and children in the name of
    God for the Pope of the Vatican .

    (WHY?)(1). King John refused
    to accept The Vatican's representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope
    Innocent III installed to = fraudulently rule England (religious or in
    fact?). (2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict = False
    Claim. Interdict means a prohibition.)

    King John was
    excommunicated, a fraud scheme and extortion, and in trying to regain
    his stature he, the King, groveled before the Pope and returned the
    title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals =
    extortion, and swore submission and loyalty to the Pope thereof. King
    John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a
    vassal's bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213,
    King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the
    returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by
    treaty, King John ratified his Declaratory Judgment surrender of his
    kingdoms = extortion, to the Pope, as the Churches, aka, Cult Vicar of
    Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as
    tradition

    We the People and Citizens who pay Un-Constitution
    1895 Taxes on united States of the Filed 1776 1778 ratified
    Constitution With the Vatican , British Federal Government including
    the rest of the world of the time. Published in the Newport newstime
    paper.

    Notice of RICO Crimes/U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 10 – The U.S …
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html Cached
    Article
    1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution … No State shall enter
    into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque
    and Reprisal …

    Whereas : This Email and or Fax numbers to
    send your Possible Criminal Complaint on Misuse of Public tax for
    action looking like fraud
    ,rico thief of Services Thief of public
    funds. City , County State ,Federal For indictment investigation of a
    Lawful Bloodline American jury of of Theseus forty eight states now
    fifty the country , Absolutely NO Elected and public servants Registered
    Church members of and organized religion of faith Only be an lawful
    Bloodline American Jury

    Whereas the IMF/IRS are unregistered
    foreign agents as is the 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 definition 15) United States
    means A) FEDERAL CORPORATION This corporation is de facto without
    standing in law as it was and remains to this day Treason against the
    1776, ratified 1778, Constitution for the United States of America,
    violation of Oath of Office, Misprision's, Collusion, Hones Service
    Fraud, Extortion, R.I.C.O., land theft, Identity Theft, Personage
    whereas No Constitutional Amendment authorized our elected, appointed
    and hired employees to create this Corporation.

    These de
    facto Corporate governments are a usurpation of the 1776 Constitution
    for the United States of America, Violating their Oath of Office, and
    this corporatist onslaught in America has been since its creation, been
    an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and are of a TERRORIST REGIME in fact the real
    TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic. This fraud scheme now
    ties in with the Social Security Act under Titles IV, V and XIV and
    falls under the headings of Child Trafficking, Conflict of Interest
    whereas the Judge receives $125,000.00 per child taken out of the home
    and the CPS workers receives $7,500.00 per child – even more if child is
    physically handicapped. Make sure you ask your attorney, judge and
    prosecutor for a conflict of interest statement, in court, before the
    trial begins and in front of the Jury. Make sure you know the definition
    of “inn of court” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Ed. Question Jurisdiction
    and the kind of law they are practicing against you before going to
    trial/hearings. Fraud by color of law changes everything so look for the
    Flags they are flying within the Court Room. Study DDE Executive Order
    10834 re these issues. Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

    Where
    is the Corpus Delicti? It would appear the above are Crime Victims,
    Corpus Delicti themselves in all matters related thereof. This supposed
    tax would therefore have to comply to the Lawful Definition of “income”
    for all tax legislation as defined by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
    Straton's Indep. V Howbert 231 U.S. 339 (1913) “the gain derived from
    Capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include the sale
    or conversion of a capital asset“; the result of corporate activity.
    Exactly what corporate activity are these dead entities engaged in that
    they would be required to file a Corporate return? Show me the Corpus
    Delicti thereof. The Birth Record fraud scheme deliberately established
    by the legal community, members of Congress, Federal Reserve, the
    PRESIDENT AND CEO of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dba, A FEDERAL
    CORPORATION, JUDGES, LAWYERS and ATTORNEYS, Courts, Clerks of the Court,
    present and past, to steal these RULE 4-5.5 UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW;
    MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW

    Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved U<l:CI-306-308- I 207 Sovereignty Notice: Title 17 Title 18 -2411242
    I am not an attorney, medical professional or financial adviser and all the exchanges contained in this
    email are for personal use only. This private email message, including any attachment[ s] is limited to
    the sole use of the intended recipient [s] and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information.
    Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, Public Servants or Local Corporate Govemment[s] ,et.
    aL,and/or Third Party[ies] working in collhsion by collecting and/or monitoring My email[ s] and
    collecting these communications Without by Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All
    I Unauthorized Review. Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Only the
    authority of this instrument ti the only live force that can change or alter this instrument
    Without Prejudice and Without Recourse jo Me, Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any
    and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights &! Reserved Rights. It is my hope that the things within this
    email are a blessing unto every reader without exception, for We the People desire peaceful coexistence
    with ALL! Most importantly we desire out "elected", "hired", or "Appointed" to Office carryon the
    affairs of all Government agencies, departments in accordance to the Supreme Law of the Land
    Communications Privacy Act. 18U.S.C 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq. governs distribution of this
    "Message"; including attachments The originator intended this message for this specified recipients
    only: it may contain the originators confidential and proprietary information. The Originator hereby
    notifies unintended recipients that they mdy have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes
    their message review discrimination, cop~ing , and and content-based actions Receipts-in error shall
    notify the originator immediately bye-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carries of of
    this message shall expeditiously deliver this message to intended recipients. See Quon v Arch Anything
    stated in this e-mail may be limited in the tontent and is not to be taking out of context. **Wireless
    Copyright Notice** Federal and State laws Govern Copy rights to this message You must have the Full
    Written consent to alter, copy ,or use this Message. Originator acknowledge others copyrighted
    content in this Message. Otherwise Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission dose
    not constitute a waiver of any and/or All Irltellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1 = I207 =308
    NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE. NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT

  8. oregontrackers says:

    “Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
    And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”
    1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
    1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial
    officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer,
    paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into
    the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court.
    People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is
    engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.
    1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery
    itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. …
    It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the
    judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court
    have been directly corrupted.”
    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace
    that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
    officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its
    impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d
    689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a
    decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes
    final.”
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
    It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court”
    vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354;
    192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies
    to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F.
    Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into
    which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that
    fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589
    (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949);
    Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
    Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the
    court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
    Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain
    circumstances.
    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective
    observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude
    or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is
    unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162
    (1994).
    Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a
    requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486
    U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its
    appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is
    directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”)
    (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from
    actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
    process.”).
    That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any
    proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d
    1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is
    important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has
    received justice.”
    The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the
    appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt
    v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an
    interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
    “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of
    recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.”
    Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
    Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for
    his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this
    language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is
    filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
    Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow
    the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given
    another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.
    Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has
    evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the
    orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would
    appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause
    of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a
    tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process
    Clause.”).
    Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has
    been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal
    Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal
    capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this
    manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not
    a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
    If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-
    represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the
    law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
    However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the
    law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other
    courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be
    disqualified” under certain circumstances.
    The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts
    without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has
    been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that
    he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the
    interference with interstate commerce.
    Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both
    treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

    “The restrictions that the
    Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker,
    i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the
    restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as
    employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many
    different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be
    prevent…ed from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v.
    Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their
    property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances
    government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987)
    (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment).
    Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the
    government information that may incriminate them, but government
    employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they
    refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v.
    Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard
    to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished
    for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be
    fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983).
    Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but
    federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for
    that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil
    Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick
    v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”[Rutan v. Republican Party
    of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)] 18 U.S.C. 1001 et al.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

    …nor
    shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of
    “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This
    is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private
    property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that
    people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the
    ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right
    to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits
    of another man’s labors.
    US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT

    codes.lp.findlaw.com › US Code › Title 18 › Part I

    FindLaw
    provides US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT for … programs
    receiving Federal funds; Section 667 Theft of … Law Firm Marketing
    Services /

    18 U.S. Code Chapter 31 – EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT |…

    http://www.law.cornell.edu › U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I

    Federal
    law; World law; Lawyer directory; Legal encyclopedia. … § 666 – Theft
    or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds § 667 – Theft of
    livestock

    State Identity Theft Statutes and Criminal Use of…
    http://www.ncsl.org/…/identity-theft-state-statutes.aspx
    IRS
    On the heels of a years-long controversy over its targeting of mostly
    tea-party and Christian groups with what critics have described as
    harassment, the Internal Revenue Service now has come up with a new plan
    for those nonprofits – have them collect donors’ Social Security
    Numbers.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/irs-has-new-use-for-your-social-security-number/#LJ55ymCPIuIxc7GR.99

    Civil War 1866

  9. oregontrackers says:

    Where
    is the Corpus Delicti? It would appear the above are Crime Victims,
    Corpus Delicti themselves in all matters related thereof. This supposed
    tax would therefore have to comply to the Lawful Definition of “income”
    for all tax legislation as defined by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
    Straton’s Indep. V Howbert 231 U.S. 339 (1913) “the gain derived from
    Capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include the sale
    or conversion of a capital asset“; the result of corporate activity.
    Exactly what corporate activity are these dead entities engaged in that
    they would be required to file a Corporate return? Show me the Corpus
    Delicti thereof. The Birth Record fraud scheme deliberately established
    by the legal community, members of Congress, Federal Reserve, the
    PRESIDENT AND CEO of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dba, A FEDERAL
    CORPORATION, JUDGES, LAWYERS and ATTORNEYS, Courts, Clerks of the Court,
    present and past, to steal these RULE 4-5.5 UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW;
    MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW

  10. oregontrackers says:

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

    …nor
    shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law…But it is a contradiction in termsto speak of
    “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This
    is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private
    property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that
    people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the
    ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right
    to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits
    of another man’s labors.

    So, in conclusion:

    REMEMBER that
    clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights
    come from God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government
    – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

    Our
    right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from
    the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come
    from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the
    “right” to live at other peoples’ expense.

    Our Rights were bestowed by God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

    1
    “Natural Law” refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric
    of Reality: The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality, etc.
    Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as
    inherent to the nature of man. Either way, one comes up with essentially
    the same set of Rights. And if you listen carefully to
    “liberals/progressives” as they speak on any topic, you will see that
    their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept
    of transcendent Law. This is because they know no “law” but their own
    Wills.=The law of the land prevails.

    – Talmud, Gittin Topics:
    justice and law We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress
    and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the
    men who pervert the Constitution.
    Abraham Lincoln

    “If
    money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People,
    they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus
    peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or
    disturbing the public tranquility.” Journals of the Continental
    Congress. 26 October, 1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13.”Government
    immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy
    for an injury done to his person or property.” (Civil Rights) (Firemens
    Ins Co of Newark, N.J. vs Washington County. 2 Wisc 2d 214; 85 N.W.2d
    840 1957.) CORPS and Engineers AKA Corporation and company’s LLC , City
    county states Federal 501 C-3-9s are Black ink On White Paper the term
    AKA Black ans White, Mostly the have no Blood or bloodline Soul or
    heart beat.Thereof. Only CORPS And Including corporation Can Be liable
    of Suit under Color of Law Fraud Scam.
    CORPS AKA Corporation Company’s LLC City county states Federal are DEAD entity And only Exit in the minds of Men

    As
    to the Civil War Grace the Lawful bloodline American’s Elected and
    public servants to honor thy OATH of Services Know as the 1776 1778
    Ratified Constitution Law of Theseus Forty eight now fifty union States
    of Constitution oath of public servitude

    All government officials
    and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the
    Constitution and must NOT create any defacto 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…Ohio’s 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 700 197″Employees 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.

    Whereas :
    Magna Carta – USHistory.org
    http://www.ushistory.org/documents/magnacarta.htm
    Magna
    Carta, in a collection of Historic Documents of America. … The term ”
    Magna Carta” means “Great Charter.” 1215. JOHN, by the grace of God
    King of England… Treaty of 1213 – The Beginning of the Lie | Truth…
    http://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/treaty-1213-beginning-lie
    Jun
    28, 2009 … The Vatican didn’t like that because the King owed a lot
    of pounds to the Vatican. … The contract (treaty of 1213) was between
    two parties.
    (WHY?)(1). King John refused
    to accept The Vatican’s representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope
    Innocent III installed to = fraudulently rule England (religious or in
    fact?). (2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict = False
    Claim. Interdict means a prohibition.)

    King John was
    excommunicated, a fraud scheme and extortion, and in trying to regain
    his stature he, the King, groveled before the Pope and returned the
    title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals =
    extortion, and swore submission and loyalty to the Pope thereof. King
    John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a
    vassal’s bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213,
    King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the
    returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by
    treaty, King John ratified his Declaratory Judgment surrender of his
    kingdoms = extortion, to the Pope, as the Churches, aka, Cult Vicar of
    Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as
    tradition

    We the People and Citizens who pay Un-Constitution
    1895 Taxes on united States of the Filed 1776 1778 ratified
    Constitution With the Vatican , British Federal Government including
    the rest of the world of the time. Published in the Newport newstime
    paper.

    Notice of RICO Crimes/U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 10 – The U.S …
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html Cached
    Article
    1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution … No State shall enter
    into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque
    and Reprisal …

    Whereas : This Email and or Fax numbers to
    send your Possible Criminal Complaint on Misuse of Public tax for
    action looking like fraud
    ,rico thief of Services Thief of public
    funds. City , County State ,Federal For indictment investigation of a
    Lawful Bloodline American jury of of Theseus forty eight states now
    fifty the country , Absolutely NO Elected and public servants Registered
    Church members of and organized religion of faith Only be an lawful
    Bloodline American Jury

    Whereas the IMF/IRS are unregistered
    foreign agents as is the 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 definition 15) United States
    means A) FEDERAL CORPORATION This corporation is de facto without
    standing in law as it was and remains to this day Treason against the
    1776, ratified 1778, Constitution for the United States of America,
    violation of Oath of Office, Misprision’s, Collusion, Hones Service
    Fraud, Extortion, R.I.C.O., land theft, Identity Theft, Personage
    whereas No Constitutional Amendment authorized our elected, appointed
    and hired employees to create this Corporation.

    These de
    facto Corporate governments are a usurpation of the 1776 Constitution
    for the United States of America, Violating their Oath of Office, and
    this corporatist onslaught in America has been since its creation, been
    an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and are of a TERRORIST REGIME in fact the real
    TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic. This fraud scheme now
    ties in with the Social Security Act under Titles IV, V and XIV and
    falls under the headings of Child Trafficking, Conflict of Interest
    whereas the Judge receives $125,000.00 per child taken out of the home
    and the CPS workers receives $7,500.00 per child – even more if child is
    physically handicapped. Make sure you ask your attorney, judge and
    prosecutor for a conflict of interest statement, in court, before the
    trial begins and in front of the Jury. Make sure you know the definition
    of “inn of court” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Ed. Question Jurisdiction
    and the kind of law they are practicing against you before going to
    trial/hearings. Fraud by color of law changes everything so look for the
    Flags they are flying within the Court Room. Study DDE Executive Order
    10834 re these issues. Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

  11. oregontrackers says:

    Whereas :
    Remember as
    well merely being born within the territorial boundaries of the United
    States of America does not make such an inhabitant/visitor a Citizen of
    the United States of America subject to the Fourteenth Amendment,[XIV],
    Amendment … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884).

    House Joint Resolution 192, 1933 – ****Redemption – tribe.net tribes.tribe.net/redemption101/thread/07f05122-0090-408b
    House
    Joint Resolution 192 … this Article does not contain an absolute
    prohibition against the States making something else a tender in
    transfer of debt. HJR-192 …

    .Background- 1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED…www.youhavetheright.com/tour3
    Background-
    1933 The Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. … passed House Joint
    Resolution 192 which served … impossible as notes of debt do not pay
    for anything …

    Note Added: The unlawful color of Law actions of
    any public servant are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 thus CORPORATE
    POLICY does not apply to the children, women and the men of these union
    States whereas the crimes committed were during time of engagement as
    an employee or Corporate Officer thereof, past and present, and all
    corporate policy is null and void, ab inito, to all union states and
    their lawful residents and totally fail to comply with the Supreme Law
    of the Land thereof. All paperwork must be in compliance to this Supreme
    Law of the Land or it is null and void on face ab inito less it stand
    in Treason against the Constitution therof.

    Let us begin with what is True: Our Declaration of Independence says
    our Rights come from God. Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the
    U.S. Constitution.

    The Declaration of Independence says:

    We
    hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
    that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to
    secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
    their just powers from the consent of the governed…
    So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

    Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;
    The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
    Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent; &
    Since
    the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People,
    the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the
    Constitution.
    Because the Declaration of Independence identifies The
    Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law
    – to see what those rights are. The Bible – or the Natural Law –
    reveals many rights, such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of
    Happiness; to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of
    self-defense; the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities
    obey the Law; the right to speak; the right to live our lives free from
    interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their
    children free from interference from civil government; the right to
    worship God; etc.

    The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

    Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and
    We
    can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else’s
    interpretations WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a
    more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
    provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure
    the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
    establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    WE THE
    PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who
    created the federal government with its three branches: legislative,
    executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government
    permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do,
    when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

    WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature” (Federalist No. 33 ( 6th para), A. Hamilton.

    So!
    The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to
    the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which
    come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

    b)
    Now look at Article III, Sec. 2,clause 1,U.S. Constitution: This is why
    we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God ,
    the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

    And
    furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant
    to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the
    power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no
    sense at all! But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th
    Amendment to fabricate so-called “rights” which negate Rights God gave
    us and undermine the Moral Order!

  12. oregontrackers says:

    Whereas :

    Oaths of Office for Federal Judges: Statutes Defining Legal Custodian

    5 U.S.C. 3331:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/3331.html

    § 3331. Oath of office Release date: 2004-01-16

    An
    individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of
    honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take
    the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
    support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
    enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
    allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
    mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
    faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
    enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths
    required by law.

    5 U.S.C. 2906:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html

    § 2906. Oath; custody Release date: 2004-01-16

    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 which the office pertains.

    28 U.S.C. 453:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/453.html

    Whereas :
    Sample Oath of Office as required by 28 U.S.C. 453:
    Sample Appointment Affidavit (OPM Form 61) required by 5 U.S.C. 3331-3332

    § 453. Oaths of justices and judges Sheriff Release date: 2003-05-15
    Each
    justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or
    affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do
    solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
    respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
    that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
    duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the
    United States. So help me God.”

    18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
    PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 – FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec.
    912. Officer or employee of the United States. STATUTE: Whoever falsely
    assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the
    authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer
    thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or
    obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined
    under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See
    this and this for more information.

    Despite this fact, as admitted in Senate
    Report 93-549 (1973): “A majority of people in the United States have
    lived all their lives (mischaracterized as British Subjects thanks to
    registration via Certificates of Birth) under emergency rule. For 40
    years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the
    Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into
    force by statutes of national emergency.”

    The general rule is
    that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and 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. As
    unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it
    had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it
    purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
    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. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any
    existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the
    fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound
    to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce
    it.”Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation
    of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his,or her, own
    actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4
    of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office.

    It is the
    duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this
    Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. (Note added: Every Lawful and recognized
    American Citizen including all Elected, Appointed, hired public
    servant(s), Children’s Protection Services, Police, Sheriff’s, Martials,
    CIA, FBI, Capital Police, Secret Service, City Council, County
    Commissioners, Board of Commissioners,et al, Religious Organizations,
    Associations, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Schools of Law,
    Corporations,

    LLC’s, Doctors, Nurses, Health Care Providers,
    Unions, et al, to preform they of Oath of Office, in compliance to the
    1776 Constitution for the united States of America, to all matters
    herein related thereof.) Please help pass this information to other
    professionals in your area – and honor thy 1776 Constitutional oath of
    office in your area of expertise it is after all as Lawful Americans’
    right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the
    Greatspirit ‘GOD’ promised mine and your bloodline of this united States
    of America for all mankind thereof.

  13. oregontrackers says:

    Federal Tax Case Shows Evidence the U.S. Legal System is a Fraud
    http://omnithought.org/federal-tax-case-shows-evidence…/2676

    Key Case Ruling by the United States Supreme Court: U.S.v. Constantine 296 U.S. 287 (1935) the IRS ruled unconstitutional

    1895 Income Tax ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court

    Wage for labor is an exchange and no income generated.

    Congress, by legislation, cannot altar the Constitution,’ from which it derives it’s Power to legislate.

    Below are the Key case rulings not found in your article:

    KEY CASE RULINGS OF THE USSC NOT FOUND IN TAX CODE NOR US CODE: = intentional fraud.

    1. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.Co., 240 U. S, 1.11 (1916)
    2. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581,20 S.Ct. 448 (1900)
    3. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; U.S. v. Cathcart, 25 F. Case No. 14,756
    4. Stanton v. Baltic Minning Company 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1919)
    5. Bowers v Kerbaugh-Empire 271 U.S. 170, 174,174 (1926); In re Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F.
    Case No. 18,273 (65 C.J. Section 2) — not known to be overturned.
    6. Peck v Lowe 247 U.S.165, 173 (1918)
    7. Doyle v Mitchell Bros. 247 U. S. 179,183 (1918)
    8. Eisner v Macomber 252 U. S. 179, 183 (1918)
    9. Evans v Gore 253 U.S. 245(1920)
    10. Flint v Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 144,151-152, 165,55 S L.ed. 107419 Sup CCL Rep
    342, Ann Cas. 1912B 1312(1911)
    11. Merchants Loan And Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509519 (1921)
    12. Helvering v Edison Brothers’ Stone, 8th Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)
    13. Southern Pacific v Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918): Art 1, Sec. 8, Cl17 And Art.IV, Sec. 3
    CL 2: Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 17: Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 15 USC 1681h: 28 U.S.C. 1333 or 1337: False
    Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(7)
    14. UNITED STATES v MERKSKY 361 U.S. 431, 438(1960)
    15. CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v SCHULZ 419 U.S.21, 26 (1974)
    16. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORP v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380,384 (1947)
    17. Utah Power & Light Co v. United States, 391
    18. United States v. Stewart, 108 re Floyd Acceptance, 7: Wall 666; Article 1 Sec.2: Art. 1 Sec.9
    19. Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47(1900); 19 CFR 351, 102
    20. Butcher’s Union Co. v Cresent City Co. 111 U.S. 746, 756 (1884)
    21. TRUAX v CORRIGAN 257 U.S. 312,348 (1921)
    22. Sims v Abrens 167 Ark. 557271 S.W. 720, 773 (1925)
    23. Myer v STATE OF NEBRASKA 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
    24. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall 36
    25. Butchers’ Union Co. v Crescent City Co. 4 Sup Ct. 652
    26. Vick Wo v Hopkins 6 Sup Ct. 1064
    27. Minnesota v Barer 10 Sup Ct 862
    28. Allegeyer v Lousiana 17 Sup Ct. 427
    29. Lochner v New York 25 Sup Ct. 539, 3 Ann Cas 1133
    30. Twining v New Jersey 29 Sup Ct. 14
    31. Chicago B&O R.R. v. McGuire 31 Sup Ct. 259
    32. Truax v Raich 36 Sup Ct. 7, L.R.A.1916D, 545 Ann. Cas. 1917B 283.
    33. Adams v Tanner 37 Sup Ct. 662 L.R.A.1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D 973
    34. New York Life Ins. Co v Dodge 38 Sup Ct. 337, Ann Cas. 1918E,593

    35. Traux v Corrigan 42 Sup Ct. 124

    36. Adkins v Children’s Hospital 43 Sup Ct. 394,67 L. Ed (April 9, 1923)
    37. Wyeth v Cambridge Board Of Health 200 Mass 474,86 N. E. 925, 128 Am St. Rep. 43923
    L. R. A. (N.S.) 147
    38. MURDOCK v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 319 U.S. 105, 113; 63 Sup Ct.
    875; 87 L Ed 1298 (1943);
    39. Tyler et al Administrators v. United States, 281 US 497, 502 (1930
    40. Pollock v Farmers’ Loan And Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429, 442, 555, 556, 573, 582, 595 (1895)
    41. STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. V HOWBERT231 U.S. 399, 417 (1913)
    42. Main v Grand Trunk R. Co. 35 L. ed 994,3 Inters. Com.Rep. 807, 12 Sup Ct. Rep. , As
    interpreted in Galveston, H&S A.R. Co. v. Texas, 52 S.L. ed. 1031, 1037,28 Sup Ct. Rep. 638
    43. U. S. v WHITRIDGE 231 U. S. 231 U. s. 144, 147(1913)
    44. Taft v BOWERS 278 U.S. 470,481 (1929)
    45. COPPAGE v STATE OF KANSAS 236 U.S.l, 23-24(1915)
    46. U. S. v. Constantine 296 U.S. 287(1935?) IRS Ruled Unconstitutional As Prohibition Had
    Been Repealed. In 1965 The United States Supreme Court Traced The IRS Back To The Civil
    War And Found No Legislative Act Of Congress Lawfully Establishing The IRS As A
    Government Agency: Contractor: Sub-Contractor. Paul Andrews Mitchell (Federal Witness)
    Web Site supremelaw.org then Click On 31 Questions. Today The General Accounting Office In
    Affidavit Refuse To Produce The Lawful OMB Number For The IRS. None Of Their
    Publications Carry A OMB Number:Meaning they Are Not A U. S. Government Agency:
    Department: Contractor: Sub-Congractor. Today In Affidavit Congress Refuses To Produce The
    Organic Act Of Congress making The IRS A Government Agency:Department: Contractor:Sub-
    Contractor: Contact:: david-lee: family of buess ; Office of Corrections For The
    Great Turtle Island 419 694 5796 Or Write Us C/O 22014 Delaware Township Road 184
    Arlington Ohio [45814]
    47. The IRS Cannot Tax From The Source (Fraud By Trickery) Only From The Source Of The
    Kind In Question: Commissioner v Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1945) Deals With
    Corporate Profit Gained From Settlement In Anti-Trust Case Not Income.
    Recent Case Rulings Against U. S. AND IRS
    1 No Law Requires Payment Of An Income Tax: Federal District Court Western Division Of
    Tennessee (Memphis) Case No. 03-CR-20111 U. S. v. Kluglin (6/22-23/2005)
    2. U. S. v. Linda Wall U. S. District Court, Central District Of California, Western Div. (Los
    Angeles) Case No. 2:04 cv 05325DDP-MAN and 2:03 cv 08406DDP-MAN Dismissed Without
    Prejudice: IRS Found Guilty Of Stepping Outside Their Authority: Mail Fraud: Counterfeiting
    Documents: No Enforcement Section within/Of the IRS Code etc.
    3. U. S. v Lawrence USDC Peoria IL 06 cr 10019 (2005) IRS violated Paper Work Reductions
    Act: 44 U.S.C.3500-3520: 3512 I.R.S. Failed To Inform Lawrence He Was NOT required To Fill
    Out The Forms.
    4. U.S. v Lindsey Springer: 08-278,09 cr 043: Without Revenue Districts There Is No
    Delegation Of Authority: Revenue Officers or Revenue Agents Are Not The Secretary Of The
    Treasury Nor The Commissioner Of The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
    We Will Make Adjustments As Required To Help Benefit The General Population. I Have
    Already Advised Congress [CONGRESS] The IRS Code Is Void For Reason Of Fraud. This
    May Also Effect Probate Laws.
    United States Constitution: Amendment XIV Civil Rights Section 2. … excluding Indians not taxed; BAD MAN REMOVED.
    The People’s Voice
    Could
    ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) be a fictitious
    disorder, nothing more than a fraud intended to justify starting
    children on a life of drug addiction?

  14. oregontrackers says:

    5 U.S.C. 2906:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/2906.html

    § 2906. Oath; custody Release date: 2004-01-16

    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 which the office pertains.

    28 U.S.C. 453:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/453.html

    Whereas :
    Sample Oath of Office as required by 28 U.S.C. 453:
    Sample Appointment Affidavit (OPM Form 61) required by 5 U.S.C. 3331-3332

    § 453. Oaths of justices and judges , Release date: 2003-05-15
    Each
    justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or
    affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do
    solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
    respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
    that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
    duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the
    United States. So help me God.”

    18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
    PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 – FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec.
    912. Officer or employee of the United States. STATUTE: Whoever falsely
    assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the
    authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer
    thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or
    obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined
    under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See
    this and this for more information.

    But anywhere along the way
    during an offer and acceptance situation there can always be a refusal
    and a refusal does not constitute a refusal for cause or a dishonor
    because you can’t dishonor an offer, you can only dishonor a demand.

    You can’t dishonor an offer. You may and you can choose to not honor an offer.

    You
    can refuse an offer, but you can’t dishonor it. However, you can
    dishonor a demand. Once there’s an offer and acceptance been made and
    then one of the parties demands their consideration and you refuse to
    give it to them, now that’s a dishonor.

    You can refuse an offer
    and that’s all you can do to it, or accept it. Now, if you accept it,
    according to the law books, you assume the liability for having accepted
    the offer. Whatever liability goes along with it, you’ve accepted it.
    One should decide whether or not one wants to assume that liability. In
    some cases you may want to as it may be beneficial to you. Remember that
    a constitution is a limiting, defining authority device.

    A
    court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic
    issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court
    must have the authority to decide that question the first instance.”
    Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8: 331 US 549, 91
    K, ed, 1666m 67 S, Ct, 1409

    “A departure by a court from those
    recognized and established requirements of law however close apparent
    adherence to mere form in methods of procedure which has the effect of
    depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.”
    Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

    Loos v American Energy Savers,
    Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)”Where jurisdiction is
    contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”

    Bindell
    v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991)
    (”the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting
    it.”).

    “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to
    denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v.
    Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739

    US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT

    codes.lp.findlaw.com › US Code › Title 18 › Part I

    FindLaw
    provides US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT for … programs
    receiving Federal funds; Section 667 Theft of … Law Firm Marketing
    Services /

    18 U.S. Code Chapter 31 – EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT |…

    http://www.law.cornell.edu › U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I

    Federal
    law; World law; Lawyer directory; Legal encyclopedia. … § 666 – Theft
    or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds § 667 – Theft of
    livestock

    State Identity Theft Statutes and Criminal Use of…
    http://www.ncsl.org/…/identity-theft-state-statutes.aspx
    IRS
    On the heels of a years-long controversy over its targeting of mostly
    tea-party and Christian groups with what critics have described as
    harassment, the Internal Revenue Service now has come up with a new plan
    for those nonprofits – have them collect donors’ Social Security
    Numbers.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/irs-has-new-use-for-your-social-security-number/#LJ55ymCPIuIxc7GR.99

    Also see 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C.A @ 611 et seq.


    restitution and identity theft passport laws. Every state has a law
    regarding identity theft or … Identity theft of credit, money, goods,
    services, .

    A “public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the state or federal government:

    “The
    restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its
    capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not
    the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its
    capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with
    respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens
    perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can.
    Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot
    have their property searched without probable cause, but in many
    circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S.
    709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring
    in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to
    provide the government information that may incriminate them, but
    government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information
    that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of
    their job.
    Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968).
    With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot
    be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government
    employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138,
    147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political
    activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise
    punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101
    (1947); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556
    (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”
    [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]

  15. oregontrackers says:

    “Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
    And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”
    1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
    1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial
    officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer,
    paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into
    the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court.
    People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is
    engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.
    1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery
    itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. …
    It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the
    judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court
    have been directly corrupted.”
    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace
    that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
    officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its
    impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d
    689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a
    decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes
    final.”
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
    It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court”
    vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354;
    192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies
    to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F.
    Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into
    which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that
    fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589
    (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949);
    Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
    Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the
    court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
    Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain
    circumstances.
    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective
    observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude
    or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is
    unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162
    (1994).
    Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a
    requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486
    U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its
    appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is
    directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”)
    (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from
    actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
    process.”).
    That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any
    proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d
    1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is
    important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has
    received justice.”
    The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the
    appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt
    v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an
    interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
    “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of
    recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.”
    Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
    Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for
    his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this
    language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is
    filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
    Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow
    the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given
    another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.
    Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has
    evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the
    orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would
    appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause
    of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a
    tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process
    Clause.”).
    Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has
    been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal
    Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal
    capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this
    manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not
    a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
    If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-
    represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the
    law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
    However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the
    law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other
    courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be
    disqualified” under certain circumstances.
    The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts
    without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has
    been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that
    he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the
    interference with interstate commerce.
    Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both
    treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

    “If
    money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People,
    they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus
    peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or
    disturbing the public tranquility.” Journals of the Continental
    Congress. 26 October, 1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13.”Government
    immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy
    for an injury done to his person or property.” (Civil Rights) (Firemens
    Ins Co of Newark, N.J. vs Washington County. 2 Wisc 2d 214; 85 N.W.2d
    840 1957.) CORPS and Engineers AKA Corporation and company’s LLC , City
    county states Federal 501 C-3-9s are Black ink On White Paper the term
    AKA Black ans White, Mostly the have no Blood or bloodline Soul or
    heart beat.Thereof. Only CORPS And Including corporation Can Be liable
    of Suit under Color of Law Fraud Scam.

    CORPS AKA Corporation Company’s LLC City county states Federal are DEAD entity And only Exit in the minds of Men

    As
    to the Civil War Grace the Lawful bloodline American’s Elected and
    public servants to honor thy OATH of Services Know as the 1776 1778
    Ratified Constitution Law of Theseus Forty eight now fifty union States
    of Constitution oath of public servitude

  16. oregontrackers says:

    All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures,
    are bound by the Constitution and must NOT create any defacto 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…Ohio’s 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 700 197″Employees 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.

    Whereas the IMF/IRS are unregistered
    foreign agents as is the 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 definition 15) United States
    means A) FEDERAL CORPORATION This corporation is de facto without
    standing in law as it was and remains to this day Treason against the
    1776, ratified 1778, Constitution for the United States of America,
    violation of Oath of Office, Misprision’s, Collusion, Hones Service
    Fraud, Extortion, R.I.C.O., land theft, Identity Theft, Personage
    whereas No Constitutional Amendment authorized our elected, appointed
    and hired employees to create this Corporation

  17. oregontrackers says:

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1986

    42 U.S.C. § 1986 : US Code – Section 1986: Action for neglect to prevent
    Search 42 U.S.C. § 1986 : US Code – Section 1986: Action for neglect to prevent
    Search by Keyword or Citation

    Enter Keyword or Citation
    Search
    2 200

    Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs
    conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title,
    are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in
    preventing the commission of the 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 neglect
    or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the
    death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect,
    the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action
    therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for
    the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if
    there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the
    deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall
    be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause
    of action has accrued.
    – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1986#sthash.c0839kdl.dpuf

  18. oregontrackers says:

    Edward M Johnston Has Filed in State of Oregon secretary office
    including this filed with the senate and house as you can see, Not one
    of the Elected and Public servants have disagree with the facts this
    public notice published for three weeks in the newspapers , public
    notice boards and museums please read
    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/72439

  19. oregontrackers says:

    My find in Black law dictionary suits every last one in office
    today..CONSTITUTIONAL PSYCHOPATHIC INFERIORITY habitually misbehave, and
    have no sense of responsibility to their fellowmen or to society as a
    whole. These individuals fail to learn by experience and are inadequate,
    incompatible, and inefficient. State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court
    of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297, 300; Wilson v. Walters,
    Cal.App., 112 P.2d 964.

  20. oregontrackers says:

    Sample Oath of Office as required by 28 U.S.C. 453:
    Sample Appointment Affidavit (OPM Form 61) required by 5 U.S.C. 3331-3332

    § 453. Oaths of justices and judges , Release date: 2003-05-15
    Each
    justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or
    affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do
    solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
    respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and
    that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
    duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the
    United States. So help me God.”

    18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
    PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 – FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec.
    912. Officer or employee of the United States. STATUTE: Whoever falsely
    assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the
    authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer
    thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or
    obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined
    under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See
    this and this for more information.

    But anywhere along the way
    during an offer and acceptance situation there can always be a refusal
    and a refusal does not constitute a refusal for cause or a dishonor
    because you can’t dishonor an offer, you can only dishonor a demand.

    You can’t dishonor an offer. You may and you can choose to not honor an offer.

    You
    can refuse an offer, but you can’t dishonor it. However, you can
    dishonor a demand. Once there’s an offer and acceptance been made and
    then one of the parties demands their consideration and you refuse to
    give it to them, now that’s a dishonor.

    You can refuse an offer
    and that’s all you can do to it, or accept it. Now, if you accept it,
    according to the law books, you assume the liability for having accepted
    the offer. Whatever liability goes along with it, you’ve accepted it.
    One should decide whether or not one wants to assume that liability. In
    some cases you may want to as it may be beneficial to you. Remember that
    a constitution is a limiting, defining authority device.

    A
    court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic
    issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court
    must have the authority to decide that question the first instance.”
    Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8: 331 US 549, 91
    K, ed, 1666m 67 S, Ct, 1409

    “A departure by a court from those
    recognized and established requirements of law however close apparent
    adherence to mere form in methods of procedure which has the effect of
    depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.”
    Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

    Loos v American Energy Savers,
    Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)”Where jurisdiction is
    contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”

    Bindell
    v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991)
    (”the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting
    it.”).

    “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to
    denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v.
    Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739

    US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT

    codes.lp.findlaw.com › US Code › Title 18 › Part I

    FindLaw
    provides US Code – Chapter 31: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT for … programs
    receiving Federal funds; Section 667 Theft of … Law Firm Marketing
    Services /

    18 U.S. Code Chapter 31 – EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT |…

    http://www.law.cornell.edu › U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I

    Federal
    law; World law; Lawyer directory; Legal encyclopedia. … § 666 – Theft
    or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds § 667 – Theft of
    livestock

    State Identity Theft Statutes and Criminal Use of…
    http://www.ncsl.org/…/identity-theft-state-statutes.aspx
    IRS
    On the heels of a years-long controversy over its targeting of mostly
    tea-party and Christian groups with what critics have described as
    harassment, the Internal Revenue Service now has come up with a new plan
    for those nonprofits – have them collect donors’ Social Security
    Numbers.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/irs-has-new-use-for-your-social-security-number/#LJ55ymCPIuIxc7GR.99

    Also see 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C.A @ 611 et seq.


    restitution and identity theft passport laws. Every state has a law
    regarding identity theft or … Identity theft of credit, money, goods,
    services, .

    A “public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the state or federal government:

    “The
    restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its
    capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not
    the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its
    capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with
    respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens
    perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can.
    Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot
    have their property searched without probable cause, but in many
    circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S.
    709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring
    in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to
    provide the government information that may incriminate them, but
    government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information
    that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of
    their job.
    Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968).
    With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot
    be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government
    employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138,
    147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political
    activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise
    punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101
    (1947); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556
    (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”
    [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]

  21. oregontrackers says:

    Citizens(Federal) and Persons vs. People

    CITIZENS. Citizens are
    members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have
    established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for
    the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their
    individual as well as collective rights.—U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S.
    542—

    If one is established as a “people”, individually or
    collectively, then one is entitled to all the rights, which formerly
    belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9
    (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec.
    3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

    A
    people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not
    damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another
    individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa,
    40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
    (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he
    does not trespass.

    Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state
    are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his
    prerogative……….2. Citizens – United States citizenship does not
    entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship.
    Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges
    and immunities of citizen of the state,since privileges and immunities
    of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G.
    S.C.C. 5-20-1927

    “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment
    to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to
    be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his
    state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431
    p.4

    “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
    States, ratified[1] in 1868, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE
    FIRST TIME a [federal] citizenship of the United States, AS DISTINCT
    FROM THAT OF THE STATES…”
    Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

    [1]
    This is a BOLD LIE, it was never ratified per Article V of the U.S.
    Constitution (Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646
    and Dyett v Turner (1968) are VERY CLEAR about this)

  22. oregontrackers says:

    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’s treaty of 1213
    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
    it’s “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!Quo Warranto https://www.youtube.com/watch…
    Contacts National Liberty Alliance http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org

    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 official’s” defense of
    immunity is to be sparingly applied in these kinds of cases. James v.
    Ogilvie, 1970, DC Ill., 310 F. Sup. 661, 663.Includes all Agency’s and
    Elected and public employees

  23. jgreencyclist says:

    His tendency to hole up with a lot of heavily armed wing nuts is reason enough to keep him where he is. What’s amazes me in this Jekyll and Hyde transformation is how the Bundys have gone from heavily armed, tough talking cowboys to pathetic, sniveling victims virtually overnight, hiding behind their children’s apron strings (see: “I want my daddy back!” videos). Take away their guns and these guys are impotent losers.

Speak Your Mind

*

shares