Monday, April 29, 2019
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Wealth For Freedom (for information purposes only)
editors note: I am re-posting this from: http://wealth4freedom.com/ for information purposes only. Not to be construed as legal advice by editor.
This may be the most important article that you have ever read! It deals with your legal status that determines whether you have unalienable rights or just corporate granted privileges. Most Americans think that they have unalienable rights protected by the Constitution. They also think that when they vote they are in fact electing officials to manage their government under Constitutional principles. Most people think that lawyers and judges practice law under a judicial system. Most people think that the government has no boundary. Well most people have relied upon government controlled schools and the media for their information and they have been misinformed!
Background:
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 is the cornerstone of America. It outlined grievances against the King and proclaimed actions to set the inhabitants free. This was followed by a Constitution for the united States of America. The Colonies/States refused to accept the Constitution without numerated Articles of Rights to be included. This was accomplished in 1791 where Ten specific Articles were included. Now we had a more perfect Union where specified powers were delegated to the Federal Government and the States and the people retained all powers not specifically delegated. The people enjoyed Liberty with unalienable rights, prosperity, and the Common Law. The Constitution was a model for the world to follow. At last people had power over government and were no longer serfs to a King or Dictator. They enjoyed a pure Republic for America.
When we read the Declaration of Independence today, year 2000, we find essentially the same grievances today as the People of the Colonies had in 1776. The inhabitants or citizens have no unalienable Rights, they have no Common Law, they have no law, only ?color of law?, no judicial system, poor education, always entangled in some war, no sound money system, and they are taxed to the hilt. They are serfs on their own property. In fact they do not have a Republic! They now live under a Democracy! What happened that made full circle back to 1776? Is the old saying true; Everything that goes around, comes around? Our problem today is the same as the People of the Colonies had with England in 1776.
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
The Problem:
The problem that caused full circle lies in the original Constitution. It is Article I, Section 8, Clause (17): Powers of Congress:
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and (18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.?
The foregoing exclusive delegated power is the authority to do anything the legislature desires to do within the District (Federal Zone) without Constitutional restraints. The legislature has taken advantage of those delegated powers for their personal and political benefits. In 1861, during the Civil War, Congress adjourned sine die. That term means forever, never to return. The Republic was under Martial Law and President Lincoln appointed representatives for the southern states and forced the legislature to again sit. The 13th Article of Amendment pertaining to Nobility was removed from the Constitution and replaced with a new Article of Amendment that prohibited slavery. That Article was ratified on December 6, 1865. In 1868 the rump legislature incorporated the District as a private municipal corporation. The charter was revised slightly in 1871. Following the incorporation of that government, the legislature adopted the 14th Amendment and promulgated a Civil Rights Act to give privileges to it’s new inferior class of U.S. citizens. The results of these Acts were the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Democracy – and they were Constitutional for the Federal Zone They changed the form of our government. The 14th Amendment made U.S. citizens? out of American Citizens and also made them subject to the legislature. A government of ?we, for, and of the people came to an end. The corporate Democracy has its own Constitution (Constitution of the United States}. The Articles of Amendments from 12 upward are of the Democracy and not the Republic. The Organic Constitution only had 12 Amendments and the Democracy has added many. Now we have two United States with different Constitutions.
Which one do you hold allegiance to?
How you were enticed into the Democracy!
It was the carrot and stick method. The corporation had both and the people were hungry. Mass mind control exercised through the media played its part. The government would take care of its subjects regardless of cost. People never pondered long enough to figure out that governments have nothing but what they can con the people out of. Slogans such as: Take from the rich and give to the poor. What happens when the rich gets poor Can you really be an employer without the resources to pay for labor and materials Not very long! Anyway, the people were going to be looked after in old age. All they had to do was to become a U.S. citizen and thus give up all their unalienable rights, and pay a very small premium for social insurance. Additionally they were agreeing to become a Taxpayer. What a bargain! They became a Taxpayer for any kind of tax, The became a new U.S. citizen? with all those Civil Rights extended by Congress, and they also got the privilege of abiding by any color of law statute, rule, or regulation that might be promulgated throughout their life span. What a deal!! I missed one, they have the privilege to support people in foreign nations as well!
Citizenship- a legal or lawful status
The government never had citizens or subjects before the 14th Amendment was adopted. Thus a new class of inferior citizenship was created. In fact such is a statutory U.S. citizen that is subject to all the rules, regulations and statutes drafted by the corporation under color of law. What was the motive for creating this new class of citizenship? Was it because the Legislature thought they could extend their Jurisdiction into the foreign states, or was it because the Freed men had no legal status after the 13th Amendment was enacted? The Blacks being slaves did not have legal status under the law.
It is interesting to note that the legislature covered their butt with a public law that allowed American Citizens to Bypass the 14th Amendment requirements with an Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Keep in mind that the exclusive legislative authority granted was limited to the Federal Zone! American Citizens were in foreign states and not under the rule of the legislature. However, by deception they did accomplish their goal. What is wrong with being a corporate citizen? Nothing at all if you understand that you are no longer in the Republic with a Bill of Rights and are subject to all the corporate whims. Federal U.S. citizens have no unalienable rights, just statutory civil rights and government granted privileges, which include, voting, paying taxes, using funny money, welfare, Social Security, licenses, and control of your life. The American Citizen remains within the Republic, has unalienable rights, has common law, he is an elector, and can do anything without a license so long as he does not harm someone else. He possesses all his unalienable Rights. The difference being Liberty and Slavery!
Citizenship is a lawful status. No one can determine your status for you because that is a personal thing. You are what your are, therefore, you must act the part of your status. Others, based on your actions, will determine your status. The term presumption is applicable here. Ex: If you are seen fishing then it is presumed that you are a fisherman. Likewise, if you are seen operating an automobile then you are presumed to be a driver?- and when you enter their inferior court rooms, you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen. What is your allegiance to? Did anyone inform you that you had to give allegiance to the corporation? No, that was your decision. You are a U.S. citizen because you attested to that fact when you signed up for Social Security, voter registration, drivers license, filled out the 1040 tax forms, applied for a gun permit and etc. Thus you have exemplified your lawful status by those actions. You may see that the corporation offers many benefits to its citizens and you cannot get those benefits if you are not one of their members. You cannot straddle the fence and be both at the same time. There is not a court in this Country that would give you standing while straddling the fence. All natural persons born in this Country were born free as American Citizens but their lawful status changed with their first nexus with the corporation, like a birth certificate or something else. U.S. citizens not only have benefits, they have responsibility to pay the national corporate debts that paid for the benefits. By law you have a choice and it is yours to make.
What is the Choice?
If you like being a corporate member of the Democracy, then do nothing and retain your present legal status. In this case you are the slave and the legislature is the master. A growing area of the legal world involves litigation finance.
If you desire to be an American Citizen, under the Republic with all unalienable rights restored and master of your government officers, then you can expatriate from the corporate Democracy. Lawsuit loans are a perfect example of the corporate mentality.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely Received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the right of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants are subject of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof, and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any offices of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances. If you are applying for citizenship in the United States, a Las Vegas Immigration Lawyer can be helpful. If you are a Spanish speaker then you can seek out an abogado de inmigracion en las vegas.
Sec.3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to act of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the acts and proceedings relative thereto shall be as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved July 27th, 1968.
Administrative Law and the Power of the Apostille
Administrative Law
I have heard
that your rebellion has been bogged down. What to do next is the plateau that
stops you. This is of interest to me by the fact that I have heard numerous
times; "How so you get them to accept this?" Well the key is if they respond,
then I am sunk. I depend on them not responding. Remember how to cook a frog.
You start with cold water, not hot water!
There seems to be a problem with what may be called "force and effect" of the Law. No matter what subject you approach, you are left with the tyrant turning a deaf ear, or even worse ridiculous statements made to make you appear as though you have the problem. This is a problem that dates back probably 7,000 years.
I may have a solution to this problem that we are now facing. We have been trained to focus our efforts in the big three arenas; Legislative, Executive, and most especially Judicial. The big three are only concerned in keeping their scams moving forward. They look to us for our wealth to be used for their purposes. We must find a process that uses these characteristics, instead of trying to buck their system and get them to admit their evil ways and them believing that they will knowingly correct to those evils.
We have one main weapon in this assault, and that is We the People. The creativity, imagination, American ingenuity, loyalty, truthfulness, and honesty rest with us and not them. It has been programmed out of government a long time ago. But we have been our own worst enemy in redress of our government. We have always depended on the government to do the right thing, and we have reached a time when the right thing is what is best for the government and we do not matter. P.S. look up the definition of communism.
We are not helpless. Government may be sneaky, but it can never be accused of being intelligent. It is always in the self survival mode and must maintain an appearance of invincibility. There are gapping holes in their armor, and that is their law. It must have the appearance of being made for us, while supplying the protection for the ignorant masses of government.
In my opinion, Administrative Law is the best approach. Administrative Law is older and more established than their law (admiralty/maritime on a military footing). Administrative Law is well defined, well settled, and well established throughout the entire World.
Did you know that a rendered Administrative Award is unassailable? The process that I use is expressed at Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 551-559. Specifically at Section 556(d) which states; "... the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof". Well, the IRS is definitely the "proponent" and therefore "bear the burden of proof".
Of course, what happens is the IRS depends on the big three of the UNITED STATES and its subdivisions to protect and defend them. And thus far, this has happened without fail. So they frustrate us by ignoring our writings, documents, evidence, proof, etc. Just because your opponent doesn't answer your questions is no excuse to go crying to the military, maritime, admiralty courts of the UNITED STATES. We have not yet exhausted our Administrative remedies. Instead of crying, hit them over the head with another one of their rules.
Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states; "... a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see Section 556(d)] of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption." So, if the IRS refuses to participate in your Administrative Hearing, expressed, just answer your own questions, and this will square the "burden of proof" on the backs of the IRS. It is in the interest of the IRS to "come forward" with proof equal or greater than you have shown. But, the IRS can't, can they?
Now, if the IRS refuses to answer your questions, and then refuses to disprove your presumptions, then the IRS (acquiescence, silence) and you (affidavit), by joint agreement, have rendered an Administrative Award in your favor. You now according to their law have the upper hand and must continue to pummel this tyrant into oblivion.
Wait it gets better. Using another of their rules, Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states, in whole; "When a party whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and the fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's (IRS) default." Administratively this is called a "Default Judgment on Award".
If we, by expression (affidavit);
1) Ask questions knowing we will receive no answer, we will then be rendered an unassailable Administrative Award, by joint agreement.
2) When answering our own questions, knowing we will be ridiculed and ignored, we have made our presumptions "established fact" of Law
3) We can then go to any of their courts, and force that court to enter our Default Judgments on Award into that court's record. And
4) Upon presentment (invoice), by affidavit, we can also have entered a judgment concerning a sum certain and costs.
We are almost there, but we need to get the approval of We the People. Rule 55 has some disclaimers in it that can give rise to the ugly heads of the big three. We need to make what we have done, Official! Guess what? There is a http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/archtype.htm simple remedy that is available for all that takes your signed document and makes it an Internationally Certified, Authenticated, Official Record and Public document of theUnited
States of America 5 October 1961 ,
and again on 15 October
1981 . For you researchers; TIAS 10072; 33 UST 883; 527 UNTS 189.
This treaty was about the "Legalization for Foreign Public
Documents". The way it works, is that you must have the "primary
signature" attested (notarized), then take the attestation (notarization)
to the state official charged with the certification of the attestor (notary).
In most states, this is the Secretary of State who is standing in place of the
Secretary of State of the United
States
Let's go get one more 2 X 4 to hit them over the head. Their Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, recognizes this process and labels it as "Authentication of Official Records". The document that we are seeking, and I have never been refused, is called an "Apostille". It is very powerful. It is on all Public Records of all ofAmerica
You may all be wondering if I am an attorney/lawyer, and the answer is no. I am recognized by the federal courts as a Counselor, though. I am an Internationally Certified Public Minister; that's an auditor of government. And I have been using the Administrative procedure for over 30 years and have found it to be almost infallible. With the application of the Apostille, this process becomes very formidable.
It may interest you to know that on7 November 1997 I conducted a verbal Administrative
Hearing with the IRS on the subject of the creation of the IRS. It was audio
taped, a Certified Court Reporter made a transcript, and it was witnessed by
ten of my fellow Americans. The result was that the IRS's only response was
nothing. I have yet to hear from them in any matter. I had not filed a number
of years before the hearing. I have entered this "Default" into the Federal District Court Federal District Court
By the way, our hearing in 1997 determined that the IRS is a Pure Trust of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has never had the authority to "tax" any man, woman, child, or business within the boundaries of the United States of America, and never will.
There seems to be a problem with what may be called "force and effect" of the Law. No matter what subject you approach, you are left with the tyrant turning a deaf ear, or even worse ridiculous statements made to make you appear as though you have the problem. This is a problem that dates back probably 7,000 years.
I may have a solution to this problem that we are now facing. We have been trained to focus our efforts in the big three arenas; Legislative, Executive, and most especially Judicial. The big three are only concerned in keeping their scams moving forward. They look to us for our wealth to be used for their purposes. We must find a process that uses these characteristics, instead of trying to buck their system and get them to admit their evil ways and them believing that they will knowingly correct to those evils.
We have one main weapon in this assault, and that is We the People. The creativity, imagination, American ingenuity, loyalty, truthfulness, and honesty rest with us and not them. It has been programmed out of government a long time ago. But we have been our own worst enemy in redress of our government. We have always depended on the government to do the right thing, and we have reached a time when the right thing is what is best for the government and we do not matter. P.S. look up the definition of communism.
We are not helpless. Government may be sneaky, but it can never be accused of being intelligent. It is always in the self survival mode and must maintain an appearance of invincibility. There are gapping holes in their armor, and that is their law. It must have the appearance of being made for us, while supplying the protection for the ignorant masses of government.
In my opinion, Administrative Law is the best approach. Administrative Law is older and more established than their law (admiralty/maritime on a military footing). Administrative Law is well defined, well settled, and well established throughout the entire World.
Did you know that a rendered Administrative Award is unassailable? The process that I use is expressed at Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 551-559. Specifically at Section 556(d) which states; "... the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof". Well, the IRS is definitely the "proponent" and therefore "bear the burden of proof".
Of course, what happens is the IRS depends on the big three of the UNITED STATES and its subdivisions to protect and defend them. And thus far, this has happened without fail. So they frustrate us by ignoring our writings, documents, evidence, proof, etc. Just because your opponent doesn't answer your questions is no excuse to go crying to the military, maritime, admiralty courts of the UNITED STATES. We have not yet exhausted our Administrative remedies. Instead of crying, hit them over the head with another one of their rules.
Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states; "... a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see Section 556(d)] of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption." So, if the IRS refuses to participate in your Administrative Hearing, expressed, just answer your own questions, and this will square the "burden of proof" on the backs of the IRS. It is in the interest of the IRS to "come forward" with proof equal or greater than you have shown. But, the IRS can't, can they?
Now, if the IRS refuses to answer your questions, and then refuses to disprove your presumptions, then the IRS (acquiescence, silence) and you (affidavit), by joint agreement, have rendered an Administrative Award in your favor. You now according to their law have the upper hand and must continue to pummel this tyrant into oblivion.
Wait it gets better. Using another of their rules, Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states, in whole; "When a party whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and the fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's (IRS) default." Administratively this is called a "Default Judgment on Award".
If we, by expression (affidavit);
1) Ask questions knowing we will receive no answer, we will then be rendered an unassailable Administrative Award, by joint agreement.
2) When answering our own questions, knowing we will be ridiculed and ignored, we have made our presumptions "established fact" of Law
3) We can then go to any of their courts, and force that court to enter our Default Judgments on Award into that court's record. And
4) Upon presentment (invoice), by affidavit, we can also have entered a judgment concerning a sum certain and costs.
We are almost there, but we need to get the approval of We the People. Rule 55 has some disclaimers in it that can give rise to the ugly heads of the big three. We need to make what we have done, Official! Guess what? There is a http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/archtype.htm simple remedy that is available for all that takes your signed document and makes it an Internationally Certified, Authenticated, Official Record and Public document of the
Let's go get one more 2 X 4 to hit them over the head. Their Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, recognizes this process and labels it as "Authentication of Official Records". The document that we are seeking, and I have never been refused, is called an "Apostille". It is very powerful. It is on all Public Records of all of
You may all be wondering if I am an attorney/lawyer, and the answer is no. I am recognized by the federal courts as a Counselor, though. I am an Internationally Certified Public Minister; that's an auditor of government. And I have been using the Administrative procedure for over 30 years and have found it to be almost infallible. With the application of the Apostille, this process becomes very formidable.
It may interest you to know that on
By the way, our hearing in 1997 determined that the IRS is a Pure Trust of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has never had the authority to "tax" any man, woman, child, or business within the boundaries of the United States of America, and never will.
- Clyde
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Friday, April 26, 2019
Liberty Advocate Framed by FBI? - The Schaeffer Cox Story
Schaeffer Cox, a well known 2nd Amendment lobbyist who had won 38% of the vote in a State House election, became the subject of an intense FBI investigation after he angered State and Federal authorities by openly accusing them of drug trafficking and child prostitution.
Oil pipeline service company executive, Bill Allen, who had been spared prosecution on multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors in exchange for his 2008 testimony against pro-2nd Amendment Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, was among those implicated. “The State Wide Drug Taskforce supplied children for sex to a number of state and federal officials in exchange for those official’s cooperation in concealing the ongoing illicit drug trafficking activities of the State Wide Drug Taskforce,” Schaeffer Cox said.
Not long after these public statements, the same departments that Schaeffer Cox accused of corruption sent in numerous provocateurs to try to switch his efforts off of exposing corruption and on to violent vigilante-type actions. Schaeffer cox, who believes in non-aggression and voluntarism,can be heard on multiple undercover recordings telling the provocateurs, “No, I’m going to pull a Ghandi, NOT a Rambo” and “if we turn violent, people will see us as the bad guys.”
In what some have called a deviation from accepted investigative techniques, the FBI responded to Schaeffer Cox’s rejection of their violent proposals by creating a threat to his children that could serve as a motivator.
Working with the Office of Child Services, the FBI filed a child neglect complaint regarding Schaeffer and his wife Marti’s 1 and 1/2 year old son. Because they do not require probable cause, child neglect complaints are an attractive tool for investigators who wish to enter a home, but lack any evidence to support a warrant.
Once Schaeffer Cox was made aware of the “writ of assistance” issued for the seizure of his young son, the FBI dispatched undercover provocateur, Bill Fulton, to again try to convince Schaeffer Cox to go on a shooting spree in response to these new developments. Bill Fulton, acting under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Sandra Klein, pointed out that the child neglect complaint was obviously the corrupt work of Schaeffer Cox’s political adversaries in the government, and urged him to go kill all officials involved.
When Schaeffer Cox and his friend, Les Zerbe, refused Fulton’s violent suggestions a second time, Fulton flew into a rage, held a hunting knife to Les Zerbe’s throat, and told him he would “slit his throat open and bleed him out at his feet” if he and Cox didn’t agree to the proposed mass shooting. Cox and Zerbe refused, and escaped never to see Fulton again.
Suspecting foul play by the FBI and local police, and fearing for their lives from Fulton, Schaeffer Cox and his wife went to the military police station on Ft. Wainwright for help. Officers there advised Schaeffer Cox that Federal agents had come into the station and bragged of how they planned to “fix the Schaeffer Cox problem” by “going into his home to take out his kid, then just shoot Schaeffer Cox in the process.” The MP’s gave Schaeffer Cox’s attorney affidavits to this effect and would later testify to the same under oath.
At FBI Special Agent Klein’s direction, Fulton made a third attempt to get Schaeffer Cox to do a mass shooting. Fulton did this by issuing a death threat ultimatum and promising to kill Schaeffer Cox himself if he refused the proposal of violence again.
Fearing for their lives, the Cox family packed up and headed for Canada. But the FBI sent another undercover provocateur, RJ Olson, after them, court documents say. Olson, a self described “drug wholesaler” working under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland, held the whole Cox family, including a 2 year old boy and a 3 week old baby girl, hostage, against their will in an attic for 21 days after sabotaging their vehicle, then using death threats from Fulton and a made up story about a truck driver to keep them from leaving.
“The government does not dispute the fact that the actions of the provocateurs working under the FBI’s supervision did in fact meet the legal definition of 1st degree kidnapping,” said Robert John, the Fairbanks attorney who got all related State charges against Cox thrown out.
On March 10th, 2011 Schaeffer Cox was taken from the attic to a deserted industrial lot in Fairbanks where he believed he would meet the “truck driver” Olson had promised. No such truck driver existed. Instead, there was a FBI ambush of out of town agents who did not know Schaeffer Cox was a well respected local political voice with popular support. The Agent’s, who had been instructed to shoot Schaeffer Cox on site if he had a weapon, were not advised by the local FBI case agent of Cox’s repeated statements about being like Ghandi not Rambo.
FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland supplied JR Olson with an unregistered, nontraceable pistol and instructed him to “put it in Schaeffer’s lap then get under the truck so there will be some thick metal between you and him when the shooting starts.” The FBI’s plan was interrupted when the owner of the industrial lot happened upon the scene and started asking questions about why men with masks and machine guns were hiding around the corner.
Schaeffer Cox was arrested and put on trial for “conspiracy against the government.” The prosecution was led by Steve Skrocki and Joseph Botini, the same people that were held in contempt of court for hiding evidence in several related trials of Alaska political personalities. The audio recording of Schaeffer Cox repeatedly rejecting violence were hidden from the jury, but are now being made available to the public by Schaeffer Cox’s supporters via youtube and other means.
Steve Skrocki, who has publically attacked Schaeffer Cox for his belief in Moral Higher Law, built his case primarily on the testimony of Fulton and Olson. But recently released audio recording and email between Steve Skrocki and his boss, US Attorney Karen Loeffler, now show that Skrocki coached his witnesses to lie, then vouched for those lies in his closing arguments to the jury.
Still others have taken issue with Skrocki’s entire theory of the case. “The importance of this case is significant to the whole of humanity,” says Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America. He points out that the prosecution conceded that Cox had no actual plans for violence, but convicted him anyway based on Cox’s belief that ‘We The People’ may someday have to stand down an out of control government.
Schaeffer Cox, who has been in prison since 2011 agrees. “This amounts to sending people to prison for simply believing in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment,” he says. “If we don’t reverse my conviction, it will set a sweeping new precedent allowing for the wholesale round up of those who have not committed any crimes.”
Rudy Davis
972-839-9848
www.YearofJubile.com
LoneStar1776.com
972-839-9848
www.YearofJubile.com
LoneStar1776.com
---------------------
Editors Note: Thanks to Rich Scheben for bringing this to my attention. This is the kind of citizen journalism that should be done 24/7 to expose the criminals in government who abuse their power and persecute people for their love of freedom and their belief in God, not to mention their belief in their right to defend themselves against tyranny being done to them BY THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES.
LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, do not use the article for monetary gain, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written or posted by Paul Stramer or Anna Von Reitz. ©2005-2019 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Win In Court - Subrogation Update & Express The Trust
http://youarelaw.org - Be advised we cannot answer most questions here but do respond to our private Premium Members, due to the sheer volume of questions. One key to winning a court case as a defendant or someone being sued, is to not play the game. It's really about trusts and establishing you proper position as a beneficial interest title holder - no as much the allegation etc. You are "charged" with a "bill" (indictment is called a true bill, or a suit claims a bill, effectively. So settle it instead). Also know you procedures as taught via http://youarelaw.org/jd
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Monday, April 1, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)