Supreme Court Justices Ruled U.S.A. Has Right To Kill You And Only Vote Party Lines

A Brief History Of America In Pictures - Can We Save Our Republic ? No I Do Not Thank So - Yes Happy Veterans Day - We The Sheeple People of The United States of America and A Real Bill of State Rights - A Republic If We Can Keep It ? The Left/Right paradigm isn't only exposed by race and immigration issues. The Left and Right are in lockstep on every issue that really matters: The IRS. Income tax. Federal Reserve system. Endless wars. Endless expansion of tyranny and ever contracting liberty. Chronically wide-open borders. Suicidal immigration policies. Don't you see? The democrats and republicans exist only to provide the illusion of choice. A strong "us versus them" simulation in every election. It's ritualized tribalism. But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. God, guns and gays are phony "issues" to bolster the illusion of "difference" between the parties. The only thing that makes all this possible is that people aren't aware of the scam. Just knowing they are either "Team Red" or "Team Blue" liberates them from the responsibility of having to actually know or think anything. Then they feel righteous when their team wins, or despondent when they loose. It's no coincidence that the system works exactly like sports. There comes a point when ignorance and apathy become treason. We are past that point, people.

Show more

How far our Government has come from being limited and protecting freedoms to Tyranny and Blaming Problems on Freedom and Bioweapon Covid-19 U.S.A..

1. Freedom America is what we stood for (Background) - 2. 13 Original Colonies Joined to beat the British - 3. Pilgrims Landing - 4. Tyranny Grows British Kill people with NO accountability (much like our Gov Today) - 5. Protest started over high and excess taxes by Red Coats - Much like today - 6. Boston Massacre- Standing Army/Police Shoots Kids for throwing rocks - 7. Boston Tea Party To Peaceful Protest the more high taxes - 8. Protest grows over Tea tax, sugar tax, stamp act - 9. 1765, Quartering Act Troops can take over homes at their will - 10. leaders getting fed up, Give me Liberty or Give me Death, Patrick Henry

11. Paul Revere Pony Run, One If By Sea - 12. 1775, Revolutionary War - 13. 1775, George Washing is appointed as the Commander In Chief of Army - 14. Jun 1775, Battle of Bunker Hill - 15. Navy Was Established To fight off British Navy - 16. Thomas Paine starts paper called Common Sense To Inform on Tyranny - 17. Mar 1776, British Leave and evacuate Boston, Red Coats Run - 18. Jul 4th, 1776. Declaration of Independence - 19. Join or Die, Ben Franklin, first political cartoon that advocated unification of the colonies - 20. Dec, 1791, Bill Of Rights

21. Don't Tread On Me, Gadsden Flag first flown on a warship,1775 as a battle cry for American independence from British rule - 22. On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four & wounding nine Kent State students - 23. Randy Weaver, 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff at his cabin near Naples, Idaho, that resulted in the deaths of his wife & son after he was set up by Gov - 24. The Waco siege, the Waco massacre, 900 Fed Agents siege the compound of religious sect Branch Davidians, Killing 75 people, 25 were children - 25. Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing in retaliation for Gov Killing at Waco & Ruby Ridge - 26. Tim McVeigh, claiming he was doing his Patriotic duty Holding Gov Accountable being led out of court - 27. McVeigh sold bumper stickers at Waco promoting Freedom & Gun Rights Knowing gov is trying to disarm the People so they can't fight Gov or hold Gov accountable - 28. FBI Agent Shot UNARMED Man over Bundy Standoff, Gov was stealing and killing Cattle over taxes, Agent cleared of shooting, Gov protecting Gov, NO accountability - 29. Lavoy Finicum, Good American Killed for standing up to Gov Tyranny - 30. FBI operation Coin-Tel-Pro to Spy On Americans - More Gov Tyranny

31. US Patriot ACT, largest seizer of Freedoms By Gov - Ignoring our Constitution - 32. FBI caught paying Best Buy To spy and Unlawfully Search all computers they worked on. Paying employees Gov money to find or PLANT evidence on comp for money. - 33. Gov Seized Guns UNLAWFULLY during Katrina crisis, Gov Broke into home & forcefully seized gun from citizens leaving them helpless to looters and criminals - 34. RED FLAGS being pushed by Gov to seize more guns from citizens - 35. Beto O' Rourke running for Texas Governor gives speech, "Hell yea, we are going to take your AR-15" finally admitting Gov Wants your guns. - 36. FBI has secret NO FLY lists & expands it to Trump Supporters Going To Protest - 37. FBI has become the most Tyrannical Gov Agency, ignoring the Constitution, secret warrants, secret list, NO Accountability - 38. FBI disinformation, working with Google, Twitter, other social platforms, using Gov power to force Pvt Companies to SPY on Americans - 39. Massive Voter Fraud, covered up & censored by Gov and Media - 40. Gov throws out Due Process & Jails political opponents IGNORING the Constitution

41. Gov Shoots and KILLS Unarmed Woman for Climbing in a window, Gov Cleared & Justified shooting - 42. Biden's Open Border flooding country with over 3 Million Illegals, American Hating Terrorist to flood more Voter Fraud - 43. Gov Forced Lock Downs, Masks, Vaccines on American, Yet Open border people get free food, phones & not required to be Vaxed. - 44. Gov CDC MADATING Kids Get vaxed or can't go to school - 45. Biden & Congress Approve 87,000 NEW IRS agents to further impose MORE TAXES - 46. Armed Americans Stand up to Federal Agents at Bundy Standoff - Gov Backs Down - 47. FBI puts out a Warning Flyer labeling Patriots & Gun owners has Dangerous and Extremist - 48. Congress passing 5000 page bills without reading them giving BILLIONS to other countries - 49. National Debt Clock - 31 TRILLION IN DEBT AND GROWING - Gov Needs more Taxes & Money - 50. Judicial Watch releases report showing FBI & Biden are Hiding Biden's Crimes

51. When Gov becomes Tyrannical It is not only our right, it is our Duty to stop it. - 52. We The People - must defend & protect our constitution and bill of rights (2nd Amendment) - 54. Ben Franklin - We must hand together or we will Hang separately - 55 A Republic if you can keep it - 56 Right to Bear Arms - 57 Molon Labe - Come & take it - Don't Tread On Me - 58 Three Percent - 59 Betsy Ross Flag

Does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens?
A Hellfire missile obliterated a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen last fall.
U.S. President Barrack Obama personally signs off on all such "targeted killings," and while most are directed against foreigners – usually Muslims suspected of being radical jihadists – at least three Americans are among the hundreds killed in the last three years in drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned Predators have become the president's preferred means of dealing "justice" overseas.

The 16-year-old, reportedly sitting among a group of men at a roadside café in Yemen, was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, son of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical Muslim cleric widely suspected of recruiting jihadists for attacks on the United States. Mr. al-Awlaki had been killed two weeks earlier in another Hellfire missile strike along with another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, a propagandist for al-Qaeda in Yemen. It remains unknown whether the 16-year-old was killed because he was the son of a suspected al-Qaeda figure or whether he was so-called collateral damage and someone else in the group was the target okayed by Mr. Obama.

At issue is whether the president, any president, can simply sign a death warrant for a U.S. citizen overseas or whether Constitutional guarantees of "due process" require more than an Oval Office checklist.

While many Americans savaged former U.S. President George W. Bush for approving harsh measures, including so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that many, including the current president, deplored as inhumane and tantamount to torture, the targeted killing on Mr. Obama's watch of a handful U.S. citizen has attracted little outrage.

Now two rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights are suing Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Central Intelligence Director David Petraeus, among others, in an attempt to pull back the curtain on Mr. Obama's murky program of selective assassination.

They can't sue the president directly; he has immunity.

The suit was filed earlier this month on behalf of Nasser al-Awlaki, the father and grandfather of Anwar and Abdulrahman and Sarah Khan, the mother of Samir Khan.

The Obama administration claims "targeted killings" are completely legal.

The simple explanation, as given by Attorney General Eric Holder, in a long speech last March states that: "'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." In the view of the Obama administration, "the Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," Mr. Holder said.

That bizarre interpretation of the Constitution is what the current lawsuit aims to challenge.

"For obvious reasons the government's authority to kill people summarily without judicial process is very limited," said Jameel Jaffer, legal director of the ACLU.

He admits there are some exceptions: a police officer faced with an imminent threat from an armed assailant or a soldier at war on a foreign battlefield. Both domestic and international law sanction such killing as lawful within limits. But the use of lethal force – away from an active war zone – has traditionally been limited to thwarting a grave and imminent threat, not substituting for the long, convoluted, process of charge, arrest, trial, conviction and punishment.

"The questions here is whether the government is justified in killing them without charging them with anything or trying them for anything," Mr. Jaffer said, adding that the ACLU fully acknowledges the very serious allegations of terrorism against Anwar al-Awlaki.

Taking a page out of the Bush playbook, Mr. Holder said legal opinions – prepared secretly because of national security implications and therefore not available – have concluded that "targeted killings" are legal.

Mr. Jaffer disputes that.

"While the case is complicated in some ways, ultimately it is very simple. Our argument is that when the government is killing its own citizens it has an obligation to explain why," he said.

I'm from the Government and I'm Here to Kill You The True Human Cost of Official Negligence Gallup recently found that 49 percent of Americans believe that the government poses “an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.” I’m from the Government and I’m Here to Kill You, written by a former federal attorney, shows that even the 49 percent have no idea how bad things really are. Rights and freedoms are not the only things at stake; all too often government imperils the very lives of those it supposedly serves. Federal employees have, with legal impunity, blown up a town and killed six hundred people, released staggering amounts of radioactive contamination and lied about the resulting cancer, allowed people to die of an easily treated disease in order to study their deaths, and run guns to Mexican drug cartels in hopes of expanding agency powers. Law enforcement leaders have ordered their subordinates to commit murder. Medical administrators have “cooked the books” and allowed patients to die, while raking in plump bonuses. Federal prosecutors have sent Americans to prison while concealing evidence that proved their innocence.

I’m from the Government documents how we came to this pass: American courts misconstrued and expanded the old legal concept of sovereign immunity, “the king can do no wrong.” When Congress attempted to allow suits against the government, the legislators used vague language that the courts construed to block most lawsuits. The result is a legal system that allows official negligence to escape legal consequences and paradoxically punishes an agency if it tries to secure public safety. I’m from the Government ends with proposals for legal reforms that will hold the government and its servants accountable when they inflict harm on Americans.

IS THERE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE IN THE UNITED STATES?
Right to Travel vs. Freedom of Movement
The phrase "right to travel" should be clarified because it's commonly confused.

Many cases, documents, etc. using the phrase "right to travel" are in fact about Freedom of Movement, which is the Constitutional right to travel between States at will. If anyone speaks of a "Constitutional right to travel" Freedom of Movement is the only valid thing they could be referring to, as we'll show.

In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or property."

Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?
Tenth Amendment, State Codes
Traffic regulation isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, therefore the power generally falls to the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts, pursuant to their police power.

All 50+ States, through their legislatures consisting of the people's elected representatives, have seen fit to devise and enact their own traffic codes and police them.

Was it always this way?
There wasn't always legislation displacing the common law. Automobile regulation began in the early 1900's. Here is an excellent paper that thoroughly explores the transitional period when decisions could go either way: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950.

Bicycles were regulated decades before automobiles were invented and activists of the day faced many of the same questions and challenges modern right to travel proponents do. An analysis of that period can be found in this publication: The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law.

Constitutionality
The States have all enacted traffic regulations, but do they violate federal law or the Constitution?

Judging constitutionality is ultimately up to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 3:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Appeals are more-often-than-not declined by the Supreme Court so adjudication may stop at the federal United States Courts of Appeals (circuit courts) or District Courts and those are a good place to look for precedent, too. We prefer citations from these federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

Federal Court Decisions
Let's have a look at some federal cases on the right of States to regulate traffic.

Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.
Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)

Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.
Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)

The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.
There we have three solid federal Supreme Court decisions that set nationwide precedent that cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States. Unless "right to travel" proponents can come up with a later Supreme Court ruling that states otherwise, their claims are busted.

And we have one less-impressive but telling quote from a lower federal district court:

Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)

Although a driver's license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense.
A few of the above cases were found in a somewhat inflammatory and dated but comprehensive publication, Idiot Legal Arguments. We picked out the relevant federal cases, but many more high-level State cases can be found there, too, if you're interested.

There actually isn't a whole lot at the federal level because appeals beyond State courts are often denied as it has long been accepted by the federal government that traffic regulation is a proper exercise of State police power. Federal courts uphold the ability of States to regulate road traffic provided it is done so with equality, reasonableness and for public safety and doesn't violate any federal laws or rights.

But I don't "drive" or use a "motor vehicle"! Those are legal terms used to enslave me and I'm smarter than that!
I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse (see Law Basics).

I've heard of people being ignored or let go by police, even without a license or insurance!
Police have discretion. The world is a very dynamic place. There are any number of reasons why you might be passed by or allowed to proceed at any given time. The cop might be a scared rookie, not care, not want to fight, have a date, have to pee, be on lunch break, be at the end of their shift and going home – think about it – they're human, not machines. The priorities of police and prosecuting attorneys vary. The law is what it is, though, and when you understand it you know in the long run you're looking for trouble if you don't obey it.

I don't like traffic regulations. What can I do?
Your lawful remedy is to convince the majority of people in your State to put pressure on your elected representatives in the State legislature to change the law. That or you could move to another State or country where there are less regulations (and perhaps more fatalities). Study hard, verify claims, think for yourself, question this, comment.

DID THE 14TH AMENDMENT LIMIT STATE CITIZENS' RIGHTS?
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1, the Citizenship Clause, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Some claim that before the amendment was ratified State citizens were not subject to the federal United States government.

The argument fails straight-away because the clause plainly states that it only applies to subjects of the United States. Anyone affected by the 14th amendment was already subject to the federal government. The federal government was merely dictating something to its subjects as anyone with subjects lawfully could.

The main intent of the amendment was to have the States recognize federal subjects, particularly slaves that were considered property and not citizens in the southern slave States, and to establish equality and full civil rights across the nation.

We should know that the States themselves, and thereby their constituents and properties, e.g. citizens and slaves, have been subject to the federal government since the Constitution was signed in 1788. Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Therefore, State citizens may or may not have been federal citizens but were definitely subject to the United States government, at least as far as the United States government could limit the States and their members.

The amendment imposed federal citizenship on State citizens that didn't have it, but did it represent a substantial loss of liberty? It is said in related Congressional documents here or here that subjects should be treated about equal with citizens as far as liberty is concerned. Therefore if a State citizen were indeed not to have US citizenship and (as subjects but not citizens) gained it by the 14th amendment, they would conceivably not suffer much, if any, loss of liberty. They would, however, gain valuable constitutional and federal protection.

I want to say that the 14th amendment Citizenship Clause does not remove any rights or privileges or impose any additional duties upon State citizens that were not previously federal citizens. For the most part this appears true. As federal subjects but not citizens State citizens would seemingly be limited similarly to federal citizens. By swearing allegiance to a State that swore allegiance to the Constitution even without federal citizenship there is a substantial loss of liberty for State citizens to the federal government. Therefore I think it's safe to say that any additional duties imposed by federal citizenship would be minor. Further, the act of forcing subjects to become citizens could not conceivably be viewed as unlawful, as doing what your master says is what being a subject is all about.

I wonder whether or not all State citizens automatically became federal citizens or if there was ever a sweeping grant or imposition of citizenship at some point before the 14th amendment. There were naturalization acts, people could become US citizens by residing in the US for a period of time and swearing allegiance in court, but how did the first citizens, the signers, etc., get their citizenship? Still working on it. Stay vigilant. Keep asking questions. Post a comment.

IS THE UNITED STATES A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION?
A popular theory is that the United States is a for-profit corporation similar to McDonald's. A variety of arguments are used to try to support this claim. We intend to investigate those arguments, but first we need to get some fundamentals out of the way.

What is a country? What is a corporation?
A country, or nation-state, is a "public body corporate", a lawful entity consisting of various members. Countries are not incorporated with any superior entity – they are sovereign, answerable only to the political, economic and military force of other nations who dare oppose. In general, nations voluntarily follow principles of public international law in the interest of peace, order and mutual benefit.

A standard corporation, on the other hand, similarly consists of various members but is incorporated into, under and subject to a nation-state or state and its laws. The nature and necessity of such corporations is explored at length in Blackstone's Commentaries: Of Corporations.

People, men and women, human beings, whether citizens or not are not considered corporations under law, but natural persons. It is not possible to appear in law individually except as a natural person.

What is the United States?
The United States is a sovereign state with the Constitution as the foundational document and supreme law of the land. The United States entity, the same you see as a party in court cases, etc., was created implicitly by the Constitution. The United States is the highest entity that exists or can exist in the United States. The United States itself is not a standard corporation incorporated under any nation's laws (or its own), however the US may form and make use of various standard corporations internally.

Now that we're done with the formalities, let's debunk some pseudo-legal claims!

28 USC § 3002 Definition
The following definition is often claimed to be proof-positive that the United States is a corporation:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
First we need to understand the basics of statutory word definition. If you read the top of the section carefully you will see the words "As used in this chapter". That means those definitions only apply within that chapter of the USC, which we see here. At a glance it covers about 124 sections out of many thousand in the USC. Moreover, the definitions only apply in federal proceedings that fall under that chapter. The same definition does not apply and is not used anywhere else.

So yes, for the purposes of that chapter, United States is defined as a Federal corporation. This argument is busted based on the scope of the definition alone – clearly something that applies in just one chapter of federal code can't override the entire nation. We can look further, though, to find the exact intent and reasoning behind the particular definition. From the description of the chapter we see it's related to federal debt collection procedure, which is a start.

How can we quickly find out more? We can search Google Scholar to see what the courts say. Clicking the first case and checking footnotes 8 and 9 sheds much light on the topic. Apparently the definition is related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the intent is to limit the application to dealings with federal entities.

In passing the FDCPA, Congress evinced a clear intent to exclude private transactions — debts created under (and thus governed by) state law, and to which the United States was not an original party.
That explains that!

The District of Columbia
Some believe that the creation of a municipal or state-style government subject to Congress in the District of Columbia somehow changed the government and made everything, including the Constitution (the supreme law of the land, remember) subject to that corporation. This would be quite impossible and makes no sense. The created cannot supersede its creator. No legislation from Congress, no ruling from the Supreme Court, no Executive Order can destroy or replace the Constitution or the United States.

Where do the profits go?
Revenue collected by the United States is managed by the United States Department of the Treasury which has a number of responsibilities. Collected monies remain in the Treasury for use within the nation. Money cannot be removed except in accordance with US law under the Constitutional framework.
What say you? Do you think the United States is a "for-profit corporation"?

Nation-States, Jurisdictions
The highest sovereign power is the nation-state, a "public body corporate", a country in accordance with public international law. At this level there is really no binding authority or effective force to hold nations accountable. Nations may have treaties with other nations, but they are honoured voluntarily, with no repercussions other than public stigma or the potential action of an injured party in the event of a breach.

While every nation is free to do things their own way, in general, next are internal states (or provinces), in accordance with national law, and [counties and] municipalities, in accordance with state law. National law trumps state law, and state law trumps regional and municipal law. Where treaties exist, international law trumps national law.

Each jurisdiction, be it federal, state, county, municipal, etc., is sovereign unto itself, subject to its parent, with federal being the highest authority in the nation. In general, a federal court cannot hear a state matter, except on appeal and in accordance with state law. A federal court cannot interfere in state matters, except where they violate federal law. A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all. A county or municipal court cannot hear a state or federal matter.

Applicability of Law
Unless you make your own law (that nobody cares about) it is impossible to appear in law except under a nation-state. You can't contract out of national law because the contract law you're using is subject to that same nation. Likewise, you can't call citizenship a trust because there is no position or law above the nation to call it a trust from. The nation dictates how things operate and there is nothing lawful you can do about it short of leaving the area, starting your own nation and declaring war.

The laws of a nation-state apply equally to everyone. Anyone in or on territory claimed by a nation is expected to conform to all the laws of the nation, state and municipality (as applicable). Where one does not wish to conform and is forced to, there is no lawful remedy one can employ to collect compensation. One can only potentially be awarded damages when federal, state or municipal laws are violated. There is no higher law as some believe. This could be viewed as an unfortunate case of might making right. Theories about what makes such a social contract legitimate vary from divine blessing to tacit acceptance by staying in a claimed area or using the products of society.

Challenging Constitutionality
Until such time as a superior court deems a piece of legislation unconstitutional or invalid it is in full force and effect. The way it works is this: bad laws are enacted, someone is eventually harmed, that someone now has standing to sue and challenge the law to potentially have it struck down. It is not up to individuals to determine the constitutionality of laws or declare them invalid. Only the highest courts can do this.

Common Law vs. Statute Law
Many seem to think common law trumps statute law. This is false. The local federal, state and municipal constitutions and legislatures are supreme. Statutes have always displaced common law, since the first English statutes. The constitution, king and parliament (or congress, state legislature or regional council) have always been stronger than the judges and courts they employ in their realm.

Again, the nation-state is the highest entity in law. Sovereign states can choose to receive third party law, such as English law. English colonies automatically receive English law whereas the US received it voluntarily via reception statutes, clearly subject to local law. Local governments, being sovereign inasmuch as they do not violate higher national, state or regional law, are always able to overturn foreign law they inherited or received.

Contract Law – Is silence consent?
There is a common misconception based on the spongy maxim "silence is consent" that one can simply send a Notice, Affidavit, Fee Schedule or other document with a time limit for response and failing that response a binding contract is made. This is not valid contract law. According to the reigning case law (contracts remain primarily at common law), contracts cannot be established unilaterally through silence, there must be a clear offer and acceptance and meeting of the minds. The recipient failing to respond in a certain time is not binding unless there is some specific valid governing legislation or common law that dictates the same. For example, many Acts, contracts, court rules, etc. dictate that certain notices and time limits apply.

UCC-1, PPSA and other Financing Statements
When a document is ignored a wayward pseudolaw proponent may turn to abusing other legal processes to try to enforce their view of the law. A common method is through UCC or PPSA filings (for the US or Canada, respectively), as these are not checked for validity at the time of filing. Such filings are a direct attack on the well-being of a person and can severely affect their economic status, credit rating, etc. In some jurisdictions frivolous or vexatious filings can garner cash awards, years in jail or both.

Financing statements are a form of expressing interest in collateral. In order for collateral to be properly owed to a secured party and qualify for a filing a clear contract or security agreement describing the intent and collateral must exist between the would-be secured party creditor and debtor. In the US and Canada, pursuant to UCC, PPSA or other legislation such as a Statute of Frauds, the debtor must authenticate the security agreement by signature.

Where no collateral is involved, financing statements are useless and improper. For a standard contract, one would simply sue in court to obtain a judgment which would allow garnishment of income and seizure of assets.

Definition of Legal Terms
A common mistake is applying definitions of legal terms universally, often from an incorrect source. One might think a law dictionary is the best place to define words for use in law. This is unfortunately incorrect. The first place a court looks for a definition is in the Act related to the specific charge. If the charge is a state traffic violation, for example, the state traffic code and definitions found therein would apply. Where a word isn't defined in legislation a court might look to its own past rulings, a superior court or any number of dictionaries or other sources for suggestions before deciding for itself what a word means.

Meads v. Meads
A Canadian case, (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571)-(This A PDF File 188 Pages) explores numerous pseudo-legal theories at length. It is highly recommended to read the case in full.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf

IS THE UNITED STATES STILL UNDER LINCOLN'S MARTIAL LAW?
Some believe Abraham Lincoln's martial law from the American Civil War is still in effect.

Hostilities technically ended about a month after Lincoln's assassination, with a proclamation made by new President Johnson on May 10, 1865.

armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end
On April 2, 1866, another proclamation declared the insurrection at an end in all States but Texas.

there now exists no organized armed resistance of misguided citizens or others to the authority of the United States in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, and the laws can be sustained and enforced therein by the proper civil authority
On Aug 20, 1866, a third proclamation confirmed that civil government was officially resumed in all states that had seceded from the Union.

I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America. Ergo, Lincoln's martial law can confidently be said to be no longer in effect.

The image reads ‘We kill people, who kill people, because killing people is wrong’ placed on an American flag with a woman holding a gun with her eyes and mouth taped shut. To understand the image further it is easier to break it down into the separate symbols within the image;

The American Flag is traditionally a symbol of freedom, although the smeared paint of the flag may pertain to some form of blurred image, showing that the image and what it stands for is not always what it appears to be
Historically women represent a caring and motherly figure, although the body language displayed (such as the gun being held firmly to her chest) depicts a cold and un-nurturing connotations
Black clothing symbolises death in a lot of countries, as it is worn to funerals.
Guns are often a representation of death or pain
The blindfold is a symbol of silence or silencing, also a parallel may be drawn to hear no evil, speak no evil.
To put simply, the best way to describe the image is simplifying a complex issue. I think that the image alludes to the use of the death penalty in America and the author’s feelings are conveyed through the tweaks made to simple symbols, such as the American flag, and that they do not agree with the death penalty, best distinguished through the words displayed on the image.

A separate reading may look further into a gender based reading of the image, rather then a political stance. The use of a female, rather then a male, in comparison, gives the image a different vibe altogether. As stated above, women are symbols of love and maternity, whereas males often are associated cold and callous feelings. Her body shape could also be looked into.

USA Loves To Meddle Other Countries And Coup U.S. Wars and Hostile Actions List!

https://rumble.com/v2ii9fo-usa-loves-to-meddle-other-countries-and-coup-u.s.-wars-and-hostile-actions-.html

A list of U.S.-backed right-wing military coups in Latin America. The U.S. has never been a country that has stood for freedom or democracy.
• ⁠South Korea 1945-48 * • ⁠China 1949 to early 1960s • ⁠Greece 1947-49 * • ⁠Italy 1947-1970s • ⁠Costa Rica 1948 • ⁠Albania 1949-53 • ⁠Syria 1949 * • ⁠Korea 1950-53 • ⁠Egypt 1952 • ⁠Iran 1952-53 * • ⁠Cuba 1953 to present • ⁠Philippines 1953 • ⁠British Guiana 1953-64 * • ⁠Guatemala 1954 * • ⁠Syria 1956-57 • ⁠Indonesia 1957-59 • ⁠Vietnam 1959-75 • ⁠Lebanon • ⁠Iraq 1959 • ⁠Congo 1960-65 * • ⁠Laos 1960-75 * • ⁠Ecuador 1960-63 * • ⁠Dominican Republic 1961 * • ⁠Brazil 1961-64 * • ⁠Iraq 1963* • ⁠Chile 1964-73 * • ⁠Dominican Republic 1965-66 * • ⁠Indonesia 1965 * • ⁠Cambodia 1967-75 * • ⁠Bolivia 1971 * • ⁠Ghana 1966 * • ⁠Greece 1967 * • ⁠Costa Rica 1970-71 • ⁠Iraq 1972-75 • ⁠Australia 1973-75 * • ⁠Ethiopia 1974-91 * • ⁠Portugal 1974-76 * • ⁠Angola 1975-91 • ⁠Jamaica 1976-80 * • ⁠Zaire 1977-78 • ⁠Seychelles 1979-81 • ⁠Afghanistan 1979-89 * • ⁠Poland 1980-1989* • ⁠El Salvador 1980-1992 • ⁠Chad 1981-82 * • ⁠Grenada 1983 * • ⁠South Yemen 1982-84 • ⁠Suriname 1982-84 • ⁠Libya 1980s • ⁠Nicaragua 1981-90 * • ⁠Fiji 1987 * • ⁠Panama 1989-94 * • ⁠Bulgaria 1990 * • ⁠Albania 1991 * • ⁠Iraq 1991 • ⁠Haiti 1991 * • ⁠Somalia 1993 • ⁠Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * • ⁠Ecuador 2000 * • ⁠Afghanistan 2001 * • ⁠Venezuela 2002 * • ⁠Iraq 2003 * • ⁠Haiti 2004 * • ⁠Somalia 2007 to present • ⁠Honduras 2009 * • ⁠Libya 2011 * • ⁠Syria 2012-present • ⁠Ukraine 2014 * • ⁠Yemen 2015-present • ⁠Bolivia 2019 * • ⁠Venezuela 2019-present • ⁠United State Of America 1984-present • ⁠New World Order Year Zero !

U.S. Wars and Hostile Actions: A List There is a reason that most countries polled in December 2022 by Gallup called the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world, and why Pew found that viewpoint increased in new year 2023.

Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 86 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.

U.S. Government Is Selling Fentanyl Laced w-Xylazine To Kill Us - Its Not From Mexico

https://rumble.com/v2giyy1-u.s.-government-is-selling-fentanyl-laced-w-xylazine-to-kill-us-its-not-fro.html

America Is Largest Drug Cartels In The World and Fentanyl Alone or Fentanyl Laced w-Xylazine To Kill Us is a potent synthetic opioid drug approved by and sold by the Food and Drug Administration for use as an analgesic (pain relief) and anesthetic. It is approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin as an analgesic. Illicitly manufactured, fentanyl is added to heroin, disguising it as highly potent heroin, so users don’t realize that the heroin they’re purchasing may contain fentanyl. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that was originally developed as an analgesic – or painkiller – for surgery. It has a specific chemical structure with multiple areas that can be modified, often illicitly, to form related compounds with marked differences in potency.

CIA Killing 100,000> Year Selling Heroin In U.S.A. Our Troops Protecting Opium-Heroin

https://rumble.com/v2fg19o-cia-killing-100000-year-selling-heroin-in-u.s.a.-our-troops-protecting-opiu.html

In 1990, a failed CIA anti-drug operation in Venezuela resulted in at least 18 ton of cocaine being smuggled into the United States and sold on the streets. The incident, which was first made public in 1993, was part of a plan to assist an undercover agent to gain the confidence of a Colombian drug cartel. How the CIA Turned Us onto LSD and Heroin Secrets of America's False War on Drugs. Through in-depth interviews with academic researchers, historians, journalists, former federal agents, and drug dealers, America's Fake War on Drugs tells true tales of how, for instance, the CIA and Department of Defense helped to introduce LSD to Americans in the 1950s. "The CIA literally sent over two guys to Sandoz Laboratories where LSD had first been synthesized and bought up the world's supply of LSD and brought it back," Lappé tells Nick Gillespie in a wide-ranging conversation about the longest war the U.S. government has fought. "With that supply they began a [secret mind-control] program called MK Ultra which had all sorts of other drugs involved."

Drug Enforcement Administration - Will Kill You - This Man Is Lucky - Most Time Dead

https://rumble.com/v2ffnam-drug-enforcement-administration-will-kill-you-this-man-is-lucky-most-time-d.html

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as you know well, most of the time DEA or FBI or CIA or DOJ or A COP Will Kill You With Bullet To Your Head and Drive Off With Your Money. Yes even innocent people aren’t safe from U.S. Civil Forfeiture.
Asset forfeiture laws is a tool in our country’s a tyrannical u.s.a. government battle against its own people and u.s.a. citizens to steal all your money and kill you, drug abuse and drug crimes, helping to shut down “pill mills” and stop rogue doctors, pharmacists, and dealers.

Thousand's Dead In U.S.A. Now & Shot In Head By Police & Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse

https://rumble.com/v2fjx2g-thousands-dead-in-u.s.a.-now-and-shot-in-head-by-police-and-civil-asset-for.html

New Proof That Police Use Civil Forfeiture To Take From Those Who Can’t Fight Back Nassir Geiger spoke with the wrong person at the wrong time and it cost him hundreds of dollars and his car. Nassir was a victim of Philadelphia’s predatory civil forfeiture scheme that operated from a shady “courtroom” at City Hall. For years, police and prosecutors seized cash, cars and even homes and then took the property for themselves. Worse still, new data show that the police preyed on people in minority and low-income areas—in other words, people who could least afford to fight back.

Black's Is White's Law Dictionary and Read Secret Canons of Judicial Miss-Conduct Info.

https://rumble.com/v2edz96-blacks-is-whites-law-dictionary-and-read-secret-canons-of-judicial-miss-con.html

Rules Professional Responsibility course about various provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is a quick overview that hits the highlights. Video Is Good... You Can Read Court Laws and Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct Law Info.

True Story How US Government Tried To Kill Weed Smokers With A Toxic Chemical !

https://rumble.com/v2ath8q-true-story-how-us-government-tried-to-kill-weed-smokers-with-a-toxic-chemic.html

Paraquat Pot The True Story Of How The US Government Tried To Kill Weed Smokers With A Toxic Chemical When people talk about “killer weed,” that’s typically understood to mean really good weed. But due to US government policies that started in the 1970s and extended through most of the 1980s, marijuana fields were being sprayed with a chemical that can actually kill you.
The chemical, known as “paraquat,” is an herbicide sprayed over marijuana fields in Mexico in the 1970s—with the aid of US money and US-provided helicopters—and over marijuana fields in Georgia in the 1980s under the direction of the Reagan Administration. But normally, anything poisonous enough to kill plants is also toxic enough to kill humans, and that is the case with paraquat.

How U.S. Government (Killed Us Again) U.S.A. Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition

https://rumble.com/v2atam4-how-u.s.-government-killed-us-again-u.s.a.-poisoned-alcohol-during-prohibit.html

Almost everyone knows that the United States government sometimes operates in the shadows, but have you ever heard of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during prohibition? This event costed 10,000+ dead people their lives perished from such poisoning and hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis . When the manufacture and sale of alcohol was illegal between 1920 and 1933, regulatory agencies encouraged measures making 60 Million Gallons industrial alcohol undrinkable, including the addition of lethal chemicals.

Why COVID-19 Shot Is Not Safe ? Nuremberg Code ? Agent Orange ? Anthrax Vaccine ?

https://rumble.com/v2affqe-why-covid-19-shot-is-not-safe-nuremberg-code-agent-orange-anthrax-vaccine-.html

U.S. Government said and or told Us - We The People - COVID-19 Shot Are Safe ? LIE's ? So Per the Nuremberg Code ? Agent Orange ? Anthrax Vaccine ? Paraquat Pot ? 1920 Poisoned Alcohol ? Now Mandatory COVID-19 Shots caused adverse reactions in most recipients all part of a series of massive government cover-ups.
The Pentagon's mandatory anthrax shots caused adverse reactions in most recipients and helped prompt many Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members to transfer to other units or leave the military between 1998 and 2000, according to a survey by Congress's General Accounting Office (GAO).

The survey indicated that 85% of troops who received an anthrax shot had an adverse reaction, a rate far higher than the 30% claimed by the manufacturer in 2000, when the survey was conducted. Sixteen percent of the survey respondents had either left the military or changed their status, at least in part because of the vaccination program.

Why is the Nuremberg Code being used to oppose Covid-19 vaccines? Other Info.

https://rumble.com/v2aav9u-why-is-the-nuremberg-code-being-used-to-oppose-covid-19-vaccines-other-info.html

I AM running through what the Nuremberg code is how the military has crossed the line with the Chemtrails and Flouride in the water parasites being sprayed poisoning the animal live stock poisoning the food with chemical additives and paraquat pot poisoning .. Clear violation of international Law, their time is extremely limited and are being dealt with as we speak. Flying right out of military bases human trafficking out of military bases, Drug and Arms trafficking out of military bases, and underground bunkers cloning underground, cloned military personell, cloned police force, forcing corporate policy on citizens during a war when there is NO LAW during war.. so maybe everyone should start doing there job because if the people have to handle this to save time we will include you all in the same bunch consider you all accomplices and let GOD sort you all out.. Also another reason why it might be in their best interest to get right with GOD.
Why is the Nuremberg Code being used to oppose Covid-19 vaccines?
As the UK Covid-19 vaccine roll out has gathered pace, and the use of “vaccine passports” continue to be debated, an increasing number of social media users are voicing their opposition to these moves and claiming they are an infringement of their rights under the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles, developed in the wake of Nazi atrocities—specifically the inhumane and often fatal experimentation on human subjects without consent—during World War Two.

We spoke to experts in medical ethics, healthcare law and social epidemiology about the Nuremberg Code and whether its principles are applicable to the current vaccine roll out or vaccine passports. We also discussed whether the code is legally binding and the darker links the claims seem to draw between the current pandemic and the Nazi era.

Ten of Thousand's Killed by U.S.A. Government + I Want Your Gun's - Killed Million+

https://rumble.com/v2a7c7q-ten-of-thousands-killed-by-u.s.a.-government-i-want-your-guns-killed-millio.html

crazy conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true and ten of thousand's killed by u.s.a. government These theories became proven fact, from a government brainwashing program, an anti-John Lennon plot to a plan to remove homosexuals from service. 15 Conspiracies That Turned Out to Be True!

Are You Lost in the World Like Me ? and The Moby & The Void Pacific Choir - W0W

https://rumble.com/v298af8-are-you-lost-in-the-world-like-me-and-the-moby-and-the-void-pacific-choir-w.html

One of the great paradoxes of our time is this: Never have we been more connected, yet never have we been more disconnected. Professor Sherry Turkle captured this jarring juxtaposition of realities in her book title Alone Together. Now electronic music maestro Moby has a song that gets at this conundrum as well: “Are You Lost in the World Like Me?”
The song asks probing questions about navigating life in our tech-obsessed, postmodern world. And the remarkable video that accompanies it adds a poignant exclamation point of its own. Our interconnected world makes many promises about making life better. But Moby’s not buying it. If anything, he suspects that things are getting worse.

Show less